Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies


 * 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. A discussion on whether to merge or not can take place on the talk page if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Maricopa County Sheriff's Office controversies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is little more than a POV WP:Fork desinged as a dumping ground for material that isnt allowedin the parent article, Joe Arpaio. Delete/Merge WVBluefield (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Major changes/expansion made to the page I noticed an editor the day of the nomination had gutted a major portion (24,000 bytes) of the article. I have restored this information. Outback the koala (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to either the Maricopa County Sheriff article or the Joe Arpaio article. Joal Beal (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge without redirect. All this information was added as a single block by who then edit-warred to keep it in. However, every item in the list is referenced, but some of them must go per WP:NOTNEWS. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless things have changed recently, you can't merge without a redirect, due to GFDL issues. Heather (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They have changed, but a year ago, not recently — we moved to CC-BY-SA. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Schrandit (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to either Maricopa County Sheriff article or Joe Arpaio article, depending on relevancy. -MidnightDesert (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly enough material for a stand alone article, clearly a notable subject, most of the page is well referenced. I don't see how deleting this page would improve the project. @nom- the parent article is Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, if you have an issue with where content is, you should first try to resolve it on the WP:talk page before going straight to an AfD, there appears to be no attempt beforehand to do this. Indeed, if you think there are WP:POV issues; discuss them first before heading right over here. An Afd should be the last step, not the first, as in this case. Outback the koala (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge SImpler and better to combine in one article. The length would still be reasonable. A "controversy" fork is something to be avoided if at all possible. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge better in one article. Main article is plenty small enough to accommodate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Covers major newsworthy events that would not fit in the main article. Keeping it separate allows more detail. Besides, we have a no censorship policy. Coolgamer (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Is notable enough to stand on its own. Also serves as a crossroads between Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, which is useful because some of the controversy regards both. More importantly, there is enough notable, verifiable information on the controversy such that if it were added to Joe Arpaio or to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, it would give undue weight. You can see that that is what happened before|. This is particularly important for a BLP. The article contains important, notable, verifiable information that is a focus in US media. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 17:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep on the content, which the creator of the AFD argues against. The controversies are not a POV fork: they're precisely the claim-to-fame of this subject.  But to merge into the other article?  Maybe, if that's stylistically proper.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogweather (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 May 2010 (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.