Talk:John Rutherford (Florida politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

from VfD: local sheriff. not notable. Wolfman 03:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable sheriff. — Gwalla | Talk 19:12, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Jacksonville is the 14th largest city in the United States. In his capacity, he serves nearly one million people, if not more. Just because you have not heard of him does not mean he isn't notable to a LOT of people. Mike H 18:46, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps people running a DMV might serve a lot of people, as do people in McDonalds, but that doesn't make them notable. Yes, I know there's a difference in the kind of work done, but the point is, this guy has no notability outside his office, and his office, as far as I know, isn't particularly noteworthy either. --Improv 12:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: though I put this vote up, based on 'notability' policy. But after the GNAA experience below, I am now an inclusionist. It is absolutely absurd that 20 or so folks frequenting the message board of Slashdot get vigorously defended as 'notable' for posting a few annoying messages. In the meantime, we routinely vote off schools, sheriffs, school board members, that are tremendously notable at least to their local communities. This sherrif probably deeply affects way more lives than GNAA ever will, though he is not notable beyond Jacksonville. However, GNAA stays in precisly because they are trolls, sending legions of new names to vote and debate the deletion, but Sheriff Rutherford isn't going to troll Vfd. So, I vote to keep this, and essentially everything else that is not a blatantly commercial advertisement. Wolfman 15:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm going to vote Keep on this one, but let me just say that this is a pretty silly reason to vote keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • No, it's not. What GNAA taught me is that the community standard for notability is quite low. I hadn't realized that, now I do. That's fine, but then let's just have consistent standards. Wolfman 14:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't let one screwed up debate turn you to bitterness about the process. Trust me, it takes months to achieve a proper level of disdain. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't confuse appreciated, or necessary with notable. Notable is about whether sufficient people have heard of the person, by their deeds or qualities. which in this case they haven't. The sheriff still might be a great guy, and we can appreciate the role said person plays, but is it more for the role or the person? In this case, the largeness of the role isn't sufficient to grant notability to the person, in my opinion. --Improv 04:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Over a million people have heard of the person. Read Jacksonville to understand that this isn't just a podunk hick town. Mike H 14:02, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - major elected position in reasonably large city. The lack of inbound links is worryng, though. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:22, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The guy is notable apparently. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Google search shows over 1500 hits with many articles from regional news sources including being quoted in a BBC piece. Bufordsmegma 03:53, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see why valid articles are being put up for deletion. --ShaunMacPherson 07:48, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep-JCarriker 13:45, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, aside from being a notable figure in a major city, this article has some good info, as well as a picture, which should push it into keep for anybody who's ambivalent about it. Everyking 15:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion