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. Michig ( talk) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Scott A. Lewis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable local figure lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOL, etc. reddogsix ( talk) 01:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep  I looked at the article, and I don't know why this is at AfD.  There are multiple sources in which the title of the article gives direct attention to the topic, there is a sixty-five acre park named after the topic, and the title of one of the sources is that there is a road named after the topic.  This information shows that the media and representatives of the public have given attention to the topic that has been in-depth significant and will be enduring.  GNG.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete- As per nom, doesn't meet WP:NBIO. And having a park named after you does not establish notability (and roads even less so). In the town I grew up in these were plenty of parks named after deceased residents, none of which would even come close to passing GNG. Sometimes the park would be named after the guy who built the development next to it and if I recall correctly they even named a park after a popular elementary school janitor.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Which sources? The localized everyday ones announcing his retirement? The ones that passively mention his name in a list? The ones that arguably discuss the park more in-depth than the actual individual? Notability is not inherited to a non-notable park and is not established by these announcements, ones we would expect in every single newspaper. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 07:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- being head of a sheriff's department does not create a presumption of notability; sourcing is local and routine. Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• This assessment of SIGCOV is not guideline based.  Unscintillating ( talk) 08:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete. All sheriffs of all counties in the United States always get localized coverage, but all sheriffs of all counties in the United States are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles. At this level of significance, the key to making an article keepable is not just "local coverage exists", because it never, ever doesn't: the key is to state and properly source a credible reason why his notability extends beyond just one county. But nothing here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat ( talk) 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• What guideline or essay states "the key is to state and properly source a credible reason why his notability extends beyond just one county"?  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• As has been explained to you many times, every sheriff who exists at all can always be sourced to a few pieces of purely run of the mill local coverage, but Wikipedia does not (and nor should we) accept that every sheriff who exists at all is automatically notable enough for an encyclopedia article. So the distinction between a sheriff who is notable enough and a sheriff who is not isn't determined by the mere existence of a few pieces of local media coverage, because no sheriff ever fails to have that — to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, a sheriff needs to be demonstrably more notable than the norm for his usually non-notable class of topic. Which means (a) demonstrably wider coverage than most other sheriffs could also show, and/or (b) demonstrably more coverage than most other sheriffs could also show. Not just "coverage exists", because coverage of all sheriffs always exists, but a reason why this sheriff is more notable than most other sheriffs. The class of topic is not inherently notable, so to qualify for an article a sheriff does have to be a special case, over and above most other sheriffs who don't qualify for Wikipedia articles. Bearcat ( talk) 22:13, 13 January 2018 (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.