Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law enforcement agencies in Ohio


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

List of law enforcement agencies in Ohio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Granted, the list is incomplete, but it is currently serving little purpose. It's a parking space for red links. For example, the section for sheriffs is a list of 86 redlinks and 2 agencies with articles. If it were the reverse, I'd probably ignore it, but 86 to 2? write the article first. If all red links and not at all linked agencies were removed, it would be about 6 agencies. Probably just a case of being too soon for this list. Since a list should really be an aid to finding things on Wikipedia, and so few of these actually exist on Wikipedia, the list seems premature. At this point, it's essentially just a directory.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is part of a comprehensive, and apparently useful and valid, set of lists for all the states. See List of United States state and local law enforcement agencies and Category:Lists of United States law enforcement agencies by state. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And many of those should probably be eliminated too. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't really that helpful. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep unless anyone can show me where having redlinks became a deletion criterion when I wasn't looking. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The redlinks aren't the reason to delete. They do show that the topic isn't nearly as notable as we're trying to make it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:CSC WP:SALAT It doesn't matter if they are redlinks (although it would probably look better if they were just names). The topic of the list "Law enforecement agencies in X" which presumably enforce the law in throughout the entire state is sufficiently narrow, well defined, but important enough to be a stand alone list.--Savonneux (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If there was enough to merit a list, it would be a notable topic. This isn't much different than writing an article about the 2025 Super Bowl. It will undoubtedly be a notable topic when there is enough information, but at this point, there isn't enough to merit writing about it. I'm not saying the topic isn't ever going to be notable, just that it's too soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You quoted WP:TOOSOON so from that essay: "require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." All those links are verifiable from secondary sources. I'd say not all of them are notable but notability of list members isn't part of the criteria for inclusion in or of a list.--Savonneux (talk) 05:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually didn't quote it. I referenced it. Almost all of those entries are referenced by primary sources. Will you be adding those reliable secondary sources? (I'm guessing no) And the part you are quoting is not just referring to verifying existence. I've removed the link to it and reworded the nom for you. Happy now? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * List of law enforcement agencies in Ohio from the Ohio state attorney general. News article that discusses Ohio's law enforcement agencies as a group. There are more I'm sure but these are the first two google hits.--Savonneux (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's awesome that you can Google. Wonderful and rare skill.....but can you go ADD THE SOURCES to each one of those redlink agencies? In other words, are you willing to do some work on it or just vote keep and leave it as the mess it currently is?
 * I didn't vote.--Savonneux (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You essentially have voted when you start citing content guidelines and make a statement that this list meets the criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Essentiality is not actuality.--Savonneux (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It has the same effect in the end. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  15:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:40, 12 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.