Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocean County Sheriff's Department


 * 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   no consensus. The population is evenly split and the discussion is reasonably thorough enough, so it's unlikely that relisting this discussion will have any other outcome. causa sui (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Ocean County Sheriff's Department

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable organization. Could not find any third party reliable sources about the organization itself. Google hits do come up, however, I am not convinced that this article should stay. If there are plenty of sources implanted and more content given, then I stand corrected. In addition, there are no other sheriff's departments in the state that have articles. What makes this so special? Tinton5 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: Little or no content  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  05:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect this article lacking independent reliable sources to Ocean County, New Jersey.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep all law enforcement agencies are notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment- Is that a subjective opinion, or can you link to a consensus discussion? The last ballpark figure I remember for law enforcement agencies in the U.S. was around 18,000. Dru of Id (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They are all notable because all of them have readily available and easy to find and multiple reliable sources as this one does.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Most law enforcement agencies are non-notable and this is one of them. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Just because there are no other Sheriff's Departments in that State listed on Wikipedia, does not make them non-notable. Numerous secondary independent media references of this law enforcement agency. Google News lists 191. Article is only a few days old and needs expanding - give it time IDionz (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * User's account is only one day old; he has made only four contributions to Wikipedia
 * A source search doesn't necessarily prove notability. Most likely it is fleeting or routine coverage; in addition it appears that most of the GNews hits come from Patch or the local Asbury Park Press  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote: User's account is only one day old; he has made only four contributions to Wikipedia - What has that got to do with with my participation this AFD debate? Do my comments have a lesser standing than yours? Let's concentrate on the debate about the article and not about editors. I've done a quick search on policy here and I found this Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers IDionz (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Tis true that editors are generally equal, but newer editors and IP's !votes in deletion discussions are often taken with a grain of salt, as very often they are unfamiliar with WP policy. I'm not saying you won't eventually become a long-standing editor, or that your vote should be struck from the record, but coming out of the gate with a WP:SOURCESEARCH/WP:GHITS argument that is suggested be avoided does indicate you may not fully understand AfD debates  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PBP please calm down and stop over eating reacting to everyone's comments.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Overeating"? That's one hilarious typo! ;) Goodvac (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why thank you very much, I was delighted you pointed it out. What a funny slip indeed.=w00tLuciferWildCat (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is right that I have been overeating of late. Gotta worry about that...still wanna fit in a 34/32.  I don't see how pointing out that another editor is new and apparently unfamiliar with deletion policy is overeating or overreacting  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You contest everyone's comments with charged and flamboyant rhetoric that is counterproductive to your goals. I am making an observation on your communication pattern not the content of any particular statement you have made. And quite clearly you did bite the newcomer while hungry and overeating and I clairvoyantly knew it!!! Happy new year. PBP89.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we delete this now? Tinton5 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And why did someone put it up for rescue? Tinton5 (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Luciferwildcat misused the rescue template...again...he doesn't as of yet have a grasp of policy. Should've been CSDed, probably.  I removed the template as it was being misused...he has on numerous occasions thrown the life preserver if for no other reason than he liked the article.   Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  04:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was not misused. Please don't remove it until the AFD has ended.   D r e a m Focus  14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to mention why something should be rescued on the article's talk page or in the edit summary when you place a rescue template. Lucifer didn't.  But I'll put it back anyway.   Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It does get significant coverage in reliable sources, so it meets WP:GNG. It isn't just coverage from its own area, but elsewhere as well.  I searched for "Ocean County Sheriff's Department" -"Asbury Park Press", to eliminate the massive coverage from that one search to see if others covered them.  Covers them collecting things for charity, loaning out bloodhounds to hunt for escaped criminals, helping with a anti-gang program, doing a free photo identification program for children, etc. Asbury Park Press, Press of Atlantic City, Home News Tribune, Daily Journal, Tri-Town News, Philadelphia Daily News, Philadelphia Inquirer, and others cover their activities.   "The annual Ocean County Sheriff’s Department Food and Toy Drive provided a better holiday for almost 900 children in the county last year."   D r e a m Focus  14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Waitaminute...you said you were gonna eliminate Asbury Park Press, then listed it as one of the papers that covers it  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I said when you click on the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD, you see a massive number of results from that one newspaper. I was pointing out it wasn't just local coverage, but you got coverage in a number of other news sources as well.  If only one newspaper covers something, you assume its a local paper.   D r e a m Focus  14:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep Law enforcement organization with considerable coverage in reliable sources, including Philadelphia newspapers.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The topic receives significant, ongoing coverage about the agency itself. Many of the sources are paywalled. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ocean County, New Jersey, I'd like to say merge but there really isn't sufficient material to merge. References doen't appear to have contributed to this article that much. RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to the county as proposed above. Not enough information to make an article worthwhile beyond the trivial and minute.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I most definitely do not think that all law enforcement agencies are notable, and have !voted delete for most of them encountered here,--even though the consensus has often been otherwise. True, there will always be coverage, but equally true, it will generally be of routine operations. My standard is the size of the agency, Ocean county has a population of 570,000. That's equivalent to a medium-large city, and sufficient. That there is little information in the article is irrelevant, because the usual routine information about  history and  organization can easily be added.  DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment unfortunately size alone is not a good way to judge notability either. If it's notable, some reliable source, somewhere will have written a significant amount of coverage where the department is the subject of the article.  That doesn't seem to be the case here and the department can be adequately covered in the main article on the town.--RadioFan (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect, either is fine. There is not sufficient evidence that this topic is notable in the article or this discussion.  Police departments get mentioned in the newspaper, that's normal.  There needs to be a bit more to go on before a wikipedia article is needed.--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete There is simply not enough coverage for this department to meet the GNG. All the results from a Google News archive search constitute routine coverage of the department's response to fires and crimes. Proponents of retention have yet to proffer one source that documents this department in detail. Goodvac (talk) 04:45, 10 January 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.