Talk:Ocean County Sheriff's Office

Sources

• here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rescue tag removed

...as WP:RESCUE requires a proper explanation given for why the rescue tag was placed and how the article can be fixed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 04:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The sources section I placed about would be the how.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

merge/redirect

A number of editors expressed concerns about the notability of this article in the AFD (which was closed as no concensus) Any thoughts on merge of this article to Ocean County, New Jersey?--RadioFan (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be the same as delete, as far as the article would be eliminated, and nothing but a token amount of information put over there if anything at all. No consensus to delete, defaults to keep, so lets keep it. Dream Focus 21:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It defaults to keep; it doesn't mean consensus was to keep. A merge or redirect is always open for consideration after an AfD is closed as no consensus and participants there suggested a merge or redirect. Goodvac (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually it does if you read the guideline carefully that is what it says.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

A quote would be helpful. I'm not seeing it. Goodvac (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Most said Keep or Delete. And as I stated, any merge/redirect would be the same as deleting this article, which many were against doing. No consensus to delete, so no consensus to merge/redirect either, obviously. Dream Focus 23:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And many favored deletion. Merge/redirect is always an option. I'm adding an RfC tag to this to attract interest from uninvolved editors. Goodvac (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that some proposed redirect/merge in the deletion debate but the closing admin reviewed it and decided to keep it and not merge it. Therefore this discussion has already been had an resolved and it should not be moved or redirected. It should be expanded.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The closing admin did not decide to keep it. The closing admin decided that there was no consensus to delete.
Expanded with what? Do you have reliable sources that discuss the history and structure (for example) of the department? I'm looking for significant coverage that can support a standalone article and haven't found any. Goodvac (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No consensuses turn to keep or not-to-delete, same thing. There are already some, let it expand organically and it's still very new to pounce on it so much.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the closing admin did not decide to keep the article, only not to delete it. Important to note that a merge isn't the same as a delete. This talk page discussion isn't here to rehash the AFD, it is here to try to come to a consensus on whether a dedicated article is warranted here. Personally I dont see it. Everything in the article as well as the references provided indicates a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL law enforcement agency. There has been indication that this will improve especially since the references found were simply added as bullets to the reference section during the AFD rather than used to improve the article.--RadioFan (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's not the same but its never done right, the content is nearly always deleted and it prevents organic growth. A bad article doesn't mean one that needs to get gutted, I overhauled it to address the concerns raised here. That includes Orphaning>>Added new links, Bulleted text>>Paragraphized the layout, Lack of inline citations/content>>Added new content and inline citations, Not substantial enough body>>added more content and an infobox, not of note>>found out some things that made this department unique and added them including first uses ofn technologies and advancements and training the secret service and being used by the FBI for their great lab.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The issue is that there are no independent reliable sources that support the content of the article. The entire history section is cited to [1], a primary source. And the "Community involvement" section is entirely cited to [2], another primary source. This department simply doesn't have the coverage to justify a standalone article.
    Significance and uniqueness of the department really isn't a factor here. It is the coverage—articles hinge upon sources. Goodvac (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Ashbury Park Press and Tri-Town News are independent, and honestly a law enforcement agency is a reliable source for it's own achievements, it should be believed on good faith value.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ashbury Park Press and Tri-Town News are indeed independent, but the articles are not significant coverage. "County offers emergency-response training course": "The Ocean County Sheriff's Department Office of Emergency Management will hold a Community Emergency Response Team course this fall for volunteers. The course will be held at the Ocean County Emergency Operations Center at Robert J. Miller Airpark on Route 530...." There is no information about the agency itself, except that it held this CERT class.
        "County names undersheriff": "A 33-year veteran of the Ocean County Sheriff's Department has been appointed Sheriff William L. Polhemus' right-hand man." There is nothing about the agency itself.
        "Support sought for sheriff’s toy drive": "The annual Ocean County Sheriff’s Department Food and Toy Drive provided a better holiday for almost 900 children in the county last year." Nothing about the agency itself except that they held a food drive.
        No, I'm saying that the agency cannot establish its own notability through pages on its website. Only third-party significant coverage can establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes they are, they are things the sheriff's office does. Under this logic we the architecture section at UC Berkeley is not about the university but how it was built and the section about Cal Sports is really just about Division I Football and not the school so the references don't cut it.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Eh? Goodvac (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There are SIGNIFICANT issues with the existing article. There is one reference used that isn't primary and it's about a toy drive which is hardly notable. If the above references were used to improve this article and demonstrate how it might be notable that would be one thing but instead they are being used to make a point (universal notability of law enforcement agencies, something there is no consensus for) which is becoming disruptive. References must be used write an notability article, not as bulleted scoreboard to vaguely suggest notability while the rest of the article remains unimproved.--RadioFan (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It proves they did a toy drive. It wasn't to prove a point, it just was coverage I came across when searching for mentions of them. The reference is fine. It shows the activities of this sheriff's department. Dream Focus 18:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The point I was referring to is the claim that all law enforcement agencies are notable, which a couple of editors here have subscribed to but there is no consensus for.--RadioFan (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

They are all notable, because you can find sources for all of them, if they all can easily pass the GNG then they are all notable, that is my point. The problem is a lot of people don't care if there are sources or what more than trivial and therefore trivial actually mean, they just care about their own personal opinion that this isn't the sort of thing worth of a wikipedia entry. This is about building the largest most comprehensive encyclopedia and body of knowledge on everything possible and we should eventually if we can find the sourcing have articles on most every restaurant, most every library, school, courthouse. Cause you know what they all have coverage if you look into it and people from a particular city or that are visiting are curious and this info is very hard to find, but wikipedia makes it all accessible as it databases everything. Detractors need to get a life and actually work on adding/improving content rather than s--ting on everyone else just cause the can with spurious technicalities and borderline misrepresentations of policy baiting merciless admins to admonish and destroy sprouting articles from growing organically.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Aspersions aside, your comment conflicts with WP:GNG, which states that a topic must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Significant coverage entails detailed discussion of the subject, not routine reports of courses and drives managed by the agency. Goodvac (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think that was an aspersion you missed the point, and you also miss the point that I said they do meet the GNG and I explained why they all do if you pry. As for this particular case it does meet the GNG.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So, looking through the above comments, the arguments made for retaining this article as a dedicated one and against merging it into the parent article center around a number of references that several editors (including myself) have expressed concerns about. Those concerns are specifically that the references do not help the article meet WP:GNG as they are insignificant mentions of the subject of the article which do not help it rise above a run of the mill. Any additional discussion before merging the article to Ocean County, New Jersey any other merge targets?--RadioFan (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You know the GNG says more than trivial coverage not in depth, you should really read it. Trivial is inclusion on a list, not entire sentences in multiple articles.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why i chose the word "insignificant" above, you should really read comments before criticizing. Let's focus on the article not other editors.--RadioFan (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That is sidestepping of the issue. Insignificant is even less than trivial and the coverage is far more than trivial.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That comment is about policy not users.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's focus on the article and it's merits and not debate semantics of editors comments shall we?--RadioFan (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

From the GNG: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail". There's the "in depth". Goodvac (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And before that it says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic' of the source material." The sources are more than trivial mentions. I understand you don't like that but that's not what the GNG says.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming repetitive. I've asked for a third opinion at the talk page of the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 07:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no secondary sources, which are required by the GNG. The two that aren't from the department's website are primary - discussing the activities of the department but providing little transformational discussion or analysis. Assuming that there are no other sources to be found, the content should be merged to the OC article, with a redirect behind so that none of the previous contributions are lost and should new secondary sources become available, the article can be restored and expanded without admin action. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• There is clearly no consensus to merge. Those that wanted the article deleted in the AFD, now want to eliminate it by merging it. That is just wrong. Coverage of their activities and mention of them was seen as significant by some editors, and not others. There isn't likely any way to change anyone's mind about it, so arguing nonstop won't serve any purpose. Dream Focus 13:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion is not merge; merge is not deletion. It is completely fair to call for a merge after an AFD fails with no consensus, since that is a completely different outcome and one that requires no admin assistance. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No this is silly, because this article does have sources, but then some people said no they don't count, but then I showed why it counted, and now its forget that primary sourcing doesn't count, but that's not the point, the point is that the third party sources count because they are not trivial.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just "third party sources". Notability requires secondary sources, which means more than just stating facts. Mind you, from the AFD, it seems that the disagreement was over the sources aspect. But also be aware, just because there are sources that may meet notability doesn't mean it needs an article; if the topic is better covered in a larger topic, then that's a preferred option. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing would be merged. Not likely even a token sentence. It would be a delete. There was no consensus for a delete. Having everyone from the AFD come over and those who said delete now say merge, and those who said keep be against the merge, is just doing the same thing over again. A complete waste of time. Dream Focus 23:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's outright assuming bad faith on the part of the merge suggestion. We never treat a "merge" as a "delete", period, even if you believe that it is the case. If the facts aren't copied over, but the redirect is left behind, anyone can fix that by adding the text to the top article for this. But presumably, the person suggesting the merge should explain exactly what and where info will be added. --MASEM (t) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by the assumption of bad faith here as well. What Dream Focus describes is a redirect which is no longer on the table. What is being discussed, or at least what I'm trying to get some discussion on, is a merge, taking the contents of the article and working it into Ocean County, New Jersey. Not deleting it, not making it go away, merging it. --RadioFan (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

People need to stop whining about "bad faith" when their actions are pretty obvious.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• What exactly from this article would be able to fit in the other one? Nothing here belongs there, so it wouldn't stay long, if any made it over there at all. Dream Focus 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There might need to be a new section about the county's law enforcement, or perhaps in the gov't section. But even if zero content was added to the County article, and this remained a redirect, no information is lost. It's within the open revision history any editor can get to. --MASEM (t) 02:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure it is. While not in the sense of an experienced wikipedian, but to the general public it is entirely unavailable without serious and stressful efforts.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep: The article seems to be of local notability if not more than that. Attempts should be made to find further sources including offline media before getting this to merge right away. The fact that consensus was not able to form over its deletion in the AfD should also reflect why this article has basis to be kept. On a side note to editors discussing the discussion itself, it can be taken as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on starting a merge discussion right after AfD failed as there was chance for same editors to get the article to merge in that discussion (and some might have done that) - editors sometimes first ask for the article to be deleted and then to be merged when they see no consensus for that which is not good practice but the other side should understand this is the next step to resolution to actually form a consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not good practice to merge or redirect an article after an AFD that was closed with no concensus, it's perfectly good practice to continue the discussion with a focus on merge rather than delete on the talk page however.--RadioFan (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I noted that in the end. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)