Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon)

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.

Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking significant coverage to base an article on. It certainly exists, there is some coverage (eg this), but what I've found is

The content is poor enough that it's been turned into a redirect to Jackson County, Oregon in the past, where it's mentioned much less than the Bigfoot trap. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_17#Jackson_County_Sheriff's_Office_(Oregon). tedder (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Oregon. tedder (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jackson County, Oregon. Subtopics are better off redirected than deleted. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 23:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What section would you redirect it to? tedder (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no specific section. There probably should be one added, maybe as a subsection of "Politics" or "Demographics". - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim or references for notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to get it back on the logs, longer comment TK below
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer comment relisted per TP request from Jay. I closed as redirect which I still believe is correct because that's almost universally how these end up since they (schools also, frequently) are considered part of broader infrastructure of the town/county/etc in which they operate. That said, we don't need bureaucracy and I'd rather relist than have this land at DRV or elsewhere for more discussion and then another relist since it was also at RfD. Star Mississippi 13:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the relist. Delete if one of the outcomes is not improvement, merge or redirect to a different target. The RfD mentioned in the nomination did not see support for this title to be a redirect to Jackson County, Oregon, so redirecting it back as is would be against the RfD outcome. Jay 💬 15:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Jackson County, Oregon per - Sumanuil. There was very limited participation in the RfD and it shouldn't take precedence over a consensus formed here. The info in the article looks to be sourced to the website which is reliable for it's own operations. It can be reasonably added (or perhaps summarized) to the county article. It's better to _add_ a mention to the target article rather than create a red link in the hope that someone will create a better article as a general matter, and certainly in cases like this where notability is limited at best. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jackson County, Oregon. There is nothing appropriate for a merge, the source is 404.  // Timothy :: talk  03:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.