Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassau County Comptroller's Office


 * 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   delete. henrik • talk  21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nassau County Comptroller's Office

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously deleted as an expired prod. Had been created by now blocked group account, apparently advertising itself (See User:Nccomptroller). The article has been recreated with the same content and contains only primary sources. There's no credible assertion of notability, and it's a lather/rinse/repeat advertising effort. Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: What is the policy on county-level administrative offices? I think that's one level too low for inherent notability (it triggers something of a clutter problem: So many things get in here that searching out meaningful information becomes hard due to sheer mass); state-level offices and major city offices are one thing, but once you hit the generic county level you're too low.  At best, I'd think that a redirect to the relevant county article might make sense...but even that risks a problem if the other office becomes notable for some reason (good or bad).Tyrenon (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The question relies on Notability and Verifiability. An article should never rely entirely on primary sources. If that's all it can do, it is highly unlikely to pass notability/verifiability standards. It's not so much a question of at what level of government we indicate a cut off; a local underfunded, government run dog pound in a small community could be the subject of an article if it was the subject of articles from multiple secondary sources. That's not the case here though. In effect, this article is asserting notability by saying it's notable and therefore it is. If you stripped it to only that which is from secondary sources, there would be no material in it at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. A better, more supportive place for this is at Nassau County, New York.  It's already there so a merge isn't even necessary. §everal⇒|Times 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable per WP:GNG, WP:POLITICIAN, etc. There is no policy on county offices, but past precedent has not been kind to inclusionists at WP:AfD.  It depends on how unique the office is in comparison to neighboring counties.  We have deleted most sheriff's offices, as well as most District attorney's offices, but kept a few. I don't recall any debate in the past five years specifically on the office of county comptroller, but Bruce Blakeman, a former county official from Long Island, was redirected. I don't see what's especially notable about this office, except perhaps as a stepping-stone to Congress. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2012 (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.