Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of district attorneys by county

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of district attorneys by county

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

District attorneys throughout the US are not a notable grouping, failing WP:NLIST. Most members of this list are non-notable individually. Additionally, not every county has a district attorney. As the article itself states, sometimes prosecutions are handled by multi-county districts, or by a state agency. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Law, and United States of America. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename I think this is an appropriate subarticle of District attorney, but it could be moved to List of current district attorneys in the United States to address the nom's concerns. Reywas92^Talk 16:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm not really seeing a need to provide a list of officials at the county level in any office. We don't cover politicians below the state level generally on wikipedia per WP:NPOL; so I"m not seeing the need to catalogue/list officials at this low level of governance either.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I also intended to cite WP:NOTDIRECTORY in the nomination but forgot to mention it. Edge3 (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL means that we don't have articles on most county-level politicians, but not that we can't cover information on them in broader articles. Indeed, since most of these people wouldn't be notable, having a list of all of them is perfectly reasonable per WP:CSC. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as county-level district attorneys are not inherently notable, and a list of such figures is equally non-notable. I would not object to moving this list to user space or a relevant project space to use as a resource for determining whether we are missing articles for people on these lists who were notable for other reasons. BD2412 T 06:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful informational list. I'm fine with the rename suggested by Reywas92. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with BD412 and nom, many of these county attornies are not notable and although the list is useful that should not be a reason to keep this list. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a total rebuttal of any reason to keep content because of its utility: If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. It is becoming more important to know who these individuals are. 47.189.246.224 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and NLIST, but not NPOL: district attorneys aren't politicians per se. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this useful information. It is valuable and can be used for research. Also, there is no reason not to include it. Keep it. 2601:647:8481:42E0:E80B:970B:9AFD:F161 (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL isn't a very persuasive argument. A lot of things can be considered useful, but because we're not a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), we shouldn't necessarily have an article. Edge3 (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an even split and I don't see many policy-based arguments. BD2412 had an interesting suggestion of keeping this article in Project space (maybe a relevant WikiProject) to use for reference of articles that might be created in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only if this remains well-updated and sourced, and a rename to List of American county prosecutors might be more appropriate since there are multiple names for this office. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not every state has county prosecutors. Some states, for example, handle prosecutions through a state agency, and in other states the prosecutors might have authority over districts spanning multiple counties. Edge3 (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or re-name if needed. This is a great resource for seeing who's notable - or not. It's also exactly the sort of list that our core readership needs to navigate. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2022 (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.