Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cumberland County Jail

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 Keep after improvements (sourcing). Fram (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland County Jail

Delete contested prod; prod was removed because "places are inherently notable". Places, as in meaning settlements, towns, hamlets, villages, yes... Jails, houses, and every McDonald's franchise are "places", as are every room in such, and so on and so ont; but consensus here is that they are not inherently notable. Given that this "place" isn't notable, it ought to go - there are no doubt 1000s of county jails in the US of A, and many more city jails or the equivalent all over. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A jail can be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Places does mean geographic places, not buildings. DGG (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With approximately 500 inmates this is a sizeable facility (by way of comparion, Stangeways prison houses just over double that). Comparing a jail to a house or a McDonalds is not meaningful, it is not the building itself that is notable it is what goes on there. Think of it as a village with 500 (unwilling) villagers. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Equating the facility with a school seems to be appropriate. Please provide a list of notable inmates (AKA alumni) that would have made the facility notable through history. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC) * Keep - when Paularblaster's 4% makes it into the article, it will satisfy both WP:N and WP:V. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Encyclopedic notability is not based on number of inmates or "what goes on there." It is established by non-trivial coverage of the subject by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although entitled to his opinion, can the closing admin please note that Satori and I have been having something of a disagreement since I questioned his speedy deletion of Trium at DRV. At that discussion the deletion was overturned on the basis of a blatant misunderstanding of A7. He has since been leaving me messages about "interpreting criteria" and seems determined to show that I cannot interpret them in the same way that he misinterpreted A7. As part of this effort he seems to be going to every AFD of articles I have deprodded and !voting delete. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't flatter yourself. I have participated in a great number of AfD discussions over the last couple years. It's going to take more than some newbie trolling to get me to stalk you. — Satori Son 01:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I haven't touched a nerve and caused you to harass me as this comment proves. It was perfectly reasonable for me to raise the incorrect deletion at DRV and I would have hoped for a more constructive reaction. Spamming AFDs with delete does not seem very constructive, why not try to be like the other editors who have spent time improving this article rather than just trying to delete it to prove a point (looks like you are wrong again). Perhaps the fact that this article looks like it may now be kept, along with Trium, might show that my actions are in good faith. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep There is no shortage of sources, to judge from google news, google books, google scholar - some (such as the report that this is one of 4% of US jails to receive national accreditation) certainly suggest notability beyond that of most jails (which are easily as notable as high schools - and in one way or another often function as high schools - but that's a discussion the google sources save us having to get into). --Paularblaster (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found a secondary source without too much effort, and haven't yet looked through all of the google news archive results. Addhoc (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of sources that can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 February 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.