Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee County Sheriff's Office (Florida)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Summing it up, if the size and area of control of a sheriff's office is large enough, it warrants an article of its own. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk  14:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Lee County Sheriff's Office (Florida)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG like most police agencies. Sure you will find stuff about crime that involved them, you may find some things about personal changes and the like. What you won't find is detailed discussion of the agency in multiple geographically disperse reliable sources. John from Idegon (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject is notable enough. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep based on past precedent, for example, Articles_for_deletion/Genesee_County,_New_York_Sheriff%27s_Office. The office of sheriff of a single county is far from automatically notable, but we have tended to keep those of larger counties. Fort Myers, Florida is a fairly large city, so its chief law enforcement office would be notable. Note however that its individual office holder is not necessarily notable. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above is a pretty poor example to cite as precedent setting. There is not a single arguement in the AfD based in policy (except the delete arguement); it is 8 years old and community feelings about WP:N and WP:V have shifted. It was non administratively closed by a now indeffed editor. The article today still does not meet WP:ORG. If you wish to propose some sort of notability exemption for police agencies feel free, however this is not the forum for that. I am tempted to re-nominate GCSO for deletion again. John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The size and scope of the department within its county merit an article based on strong past precedent. As always, there is no time limit, and the article should be expanded with additional sourcing and material. I'm further disturbed that this appears to be part of a pattern of other edits by the nominator to turn other police / sheriff department articles into redirects, without any effort to shift the material into the target articles per WP:PRESERVE. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 *  Keep or merge - Keep after adding additional references, or merge to Lee County, Florida. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have, like Alansohn, also noticed that the nominator has a history of attempting to delete the work of other contributors. If the nominator is so adamant to delete these articles and contributions that people have dedicated their personal time to, then I would suggest the nominator puts in the effort (as those who have created the article have) to shift and merge the existing material into the target articles, per WP:PRESERVE. In reference to this article, in its current state, this article is in compliance with ORG. The Sheriff's Office in question has been subject to widespread media coverage before, typical for a large county Sheriff's Office in the State of Florida. I have referenced a few international news articles related to the Lee County Sheriff's Office. Nicjec (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please keep your opinions of my motivations to yourself. If you feel you can substantiate a case for bad faith take it to a noticeboard. It has no place here. The stories you cite are about crime that happened to occur in this agency's jurisdiction.  None of them speak in detail about the agency. Almost all the arguments proffered here assume some level of presumed notability, something that is neither entrenched in policy guideline or precident. The arguements seem to hinge on the size of the county, again presuming notability based on some sort of presumption of same. I agree that a larger County is more likely to be able to generate the coverage required to show notability. But can we please see it? Assuming it exists is a fallacy. John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A large enough agency for its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.