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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Jackson (sheriff)[edit]

Michael A. Jackson (sheriff) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability has not been established. Tagged three weeks ago, removed yesterday,[1] and when asked for clarification on where notability was "debated and established", I was directed to the history.[2] Explanation disputed on my talk.[3] LaraLove|Talk 22:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability neither asserted nor proven. Corvus cornix_talk 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No secondary source evidence of notability. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. Keep. Per my thoughts below and the updating of the article. Rnb (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is a stub and WP:N is not a policy, it is a guideline. That being said, this person is an elected official and elected officials are notable by default. Since this article causes no harm and is very neutral, I see no reason why it should be deleted. It is a model of how good biographies start off. Let it have more time! Perhaps someone in the good sheriff's hometown could provide some newspaper cites? And a photograph perhaps? --Dragon695 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POLITICIAN seems to disagree with the idea that "elected officials are notable by default." Rnb (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete unless "Jackson is also the President of the Maryland Sheriff's Association" is an assertion of notability the article fails the notability criteria. Simply being an elected official doesn't make you notable (you still need to be a notable elected official). The person fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:POLITICIAN, and probably a few more I'm not fully aware of yet. The article doesn't appear to have been improved in establishing notability or reliable 3rd party sourcing for said notability and simply pointing someone to the history doesn't equate to debating or establishing notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting. A sheriff in the US is often the senior law enforcement officer and often the most powerful single elected official in a county. We probably need to modify/create a guideline for sheriffs. In Duval County, Florida, the JSO provides police services for 3/4 of a million people. In Pinellas County, the PCSO provides services to nearly a million people. In smaller or less populous areas, the sheriff's office is the law enforcement agency. The holder of such an important office should probably be notable. At any rate, while the subject does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, it might be an example ofWP:IAR to keep this anyway. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think on the surface it makes sense that the head law enforcement officer for a large number of people would be notable, but according to Sheriffs in the United States, there are around 3,500 sheriffs in the country and I can't imagine that all of them are notable. In my mind, if it would be accurate to update this article with the assertion that the area he is a sheriff for is large or somehow significant (I've never heard of the area in question, myself, so I don't know whether or not that's true) then the article would probably be worth keeping. Rnb (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've added notability to the subject and his jurisdiction. Hopefully this satisfies WP:N, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:BIO! Cheers! --Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 02:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the references in the article are just about the county, the stadium, the harbor, or whatever, or are mere directory listings. Sheriffs are not inherently notable like state legislators. I see him mentioned in 2 articles whic are reliable and independent sources. Seems too weak to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I added county facts to create notability for the subject's jurisdiction (i.e., as opposed to a no-name county in the middle of Yuck-Yuck, Mississippi with a minimal population). I have also added some awards the subject has received. Because of the notability points of the subject and his jurisdiction, the fact that the position is not inherently notable is a moot point. If anyone can see anything else that needs to be added please make a comment and I'll bring it up standards! Cheers!--Sallicio^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 23:02, 18 June 2008 (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.