Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Finnerty (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Naconkantari 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frank Finnerty
Non notable local politician. No longer even holds office. No significant press coverage. Edited in January to show he lost his position, but otherwise untouched since August 2006.DarkAudit 15:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't seem to have held notable office. --Dweller 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This is the third attempt to delete this article, the first a no consensus, and the most recent a keep. This is indeed the nominator's second attempt at deleting this article, aimed at overturning the previous consensus. I would assume good faith, but the nominator has already demonstrated an extreme lack of constructive dialog by describing edits to the article with the bad-faith statement that "Spamming a list of committees he serves on for the board is impressive...". Alansohn 17:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The board page has been redirected to the county page. There has been no real effort since August to make any additions to this page. One of the Freeholders links in the infobox redirects to an unrelated author's book. Any news coverage has been of the local variety only. For an encyclopedia of international scope, the achievements of what is basically a County Commissioner that do not gain notice very far outside of that county do not rise to the necessary level of notability. DarkAudit 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply' The previous attempt at deleting this article resulted in a decision to Keep the article as is. While continuous improvement is a wonderful goal, there is no obligation to keep on improving the article above and beyond the consensus that any and all standards were met in the previous AfD. The "international scope" claim is a great blurb but does not exist as a standard anywhere in Wikipedia. This is simply an attempt to take another bad-faith stab at deleting an article. And if this fails, we'll see another, and another and another. It's time to put an end to this gaming the system once and for all. Alansohn 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just because one AfD results in a Keep, it does not mean that the result is set in stone. If an editor, any editor, sees flaws that have not been fixed since the first AfD, it is well within their rights to nominate it again. DarkAudit 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Effectively you have granted yourself unlimited veto power to override consensus. If you have identified a "flaw" you can -- and have already -- taken repeated bites at the apple, trying to find a different group of people to go along and override settled matter. This article has been edited to address the specific issues you raised, without any valid response. Alansohn 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply The Keep you're putting out there was a discussion that focused almost entirely on how quickly the article was renominated, not on the merits of the article itself. Any editor could have put this article up for AfD again. It just happened to be me. The flaws are still there. It's still an article of only local interest. There's nothing there that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et. al. WP:BIO would suggest that this alone could warrant deletion. If the other AfDs had never happened at all, this is still a flawed article that does not meet those guidelines. DarkAudit 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I still can't find this does it play in "Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford. et. al." standard. What is the factual basis of your claim that The Press of Atlantic City is not a reliable and Verifiable source? I can't possibly rebut claims that have no factual basis. Please refer to some valid Wikipedia policy. The issues you raised have been addressed. Address the article as it stands. Alansohn 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I make no such claim. Show me where I have. How does 'insufficient' transmute into 'not reliable'? DarkAudit 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - The Press of Atlantic City is a source and he has received significant coverage there. There's nothing there that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et. al. deprecates the use of this source and requires additional sources; a policy that does not exist. Alansohn 15:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply you've made my point for me, which is that he has not received any coverage anywhere else. That would fall under the "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." guideline of WP:BIO. DarkAudit 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - I agree 100%. There is no claim that he is notable "just because" he's an elected official. At the top of the list on WP:BIO where you pulled the "just because" clause, is a statement that "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits." The claim that this individual is notable is based on the fact that there are nearly a dozen independent, reliable and verifiable sources all of which demonstrate notability. The claim stands proven. Alansohn 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply you've made my point for me, which is that he has not received any coverage anywhere else. That would fall under the "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." guideline of WP:BIO. DarkAudit 17:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply - The Press of Atlantic City is a source and he has received significant coverage there. There's nothing there that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et. al. deprecates the use of this source and requires additional sources; a policy that does not exist. Alansohn 15:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I make no such claim. Show me where I have. How does 'insufficient' transmute into 'not reliable'? DarkAudit 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I still can't find this does it play in "Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford. et. al." standard. What is the factual basis of your claim that The Press of Atlantic City is not a reliable and Verifiable source? I can't possibly rebut claims that have no factual basis. Please refer to some valid Wikipedia policy. The issues you raised have been addressed. Address the article as it stands. Alansohn 14:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply The Keep you're putting out there was a discussion that focused almost entirely on how quickly the article was renominated, not on the merits of the article itself. Any editor could have put this article up for AfD again. It just happened to be me. The flaws are still there. It's still an article of only local interest. There's nothing there that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et. al. WP:BIO would suggest that this alone could warrant deletion. If the other AfDs had never happened at all, this is still a flawed article that does not meet those guidelines. DarkAudit 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Effectively you have granted yourself unlimited veto power to override consensus. If you have identified a "flaw" you can -- and have already -- taken repeated bites at the apple, trying to find a different group of people to go along and override settled matter. This article has been edited to address the specific issues you raised, without any valid response. Alansohn 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Just because one AfD results in a Keep, it does not mean that the result is set in stone. If an editor, any editor, sees flaws that have not been fixed since the first AfD, it is well within their rights to nominate it again. DarkAudit 04:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply' The previous attempt at deleting this article resulted in a decision to Keep the article as is. While continuous improvement is a wonderful goal, there is no obligation to keep on improving the article above and beyond the consensus that any and all standards were met in the previous AfD. The "international scope" claim is a great blurb but does not exist as a standard anywhere in Wikipedia. This is simply an attempt to take another bad-faith stab at deleting an article. And if this fails, we'll see another, and another and another. It's time to put an end to this gaming the system once and for all. Alansohn 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The board page has been redirected to the county page. There has been no real effort since August to make any additions to this page. One of the Freeholders links in the infobox redirects to an unrelated author's book. Any news coverage has been of the local variety only. For an encyclopedia of international scope, the achievements of what is basically a County Commissioner that do not gain notice very far outside of that county do not rise to the necessary level of notability. DarkAudit 18:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I won't try to speak to the nominator's motives but the bottom line is that this article currently cites exactly zero non-trivial reliable sources about this man. I Googled his name and I saw exactly zero non-trivial reliable sources (plenty of mentions on various partisan web pages, as well as other trivial mentions amounting to littler more than stating his name an office, but nothing both non-trivial and WP:RS) in the first couple of pages of results. I checked on him at newslibrary.com and saw exactly zero mentions of him outside of a single paper: The Press of Atlantic City (and even in that paper, I recall only two or three articles in which mention of him is non-trivial). This seems to indicate to me that his notability, such as it is, is entirely local. I'll add the caveat that I didn't spend copious amounts of time looking through the Google and Newslibrary results, so it's entirely possible that I might have missed something, or there might have been something beyond those first couple of pages of each, which does better establish his notability. But the point is that neither I nor any other reader should have to dig for the sources establishing his notability. The burden of proof of notability is on those who want to keep. If those folks would care to find and cite the non-trivial reliable source coverage of him (preferably from more than just The Press of Atlantic City), then I think that would pretty much end the attempts to delete the article. Without such sources being cited, the deletion nomination is entirely understandable within the assumption of good faith. Mwelch 02:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply A search on newslibrary.com using "frank finnerty" freeholder as search terms found 192 sources, with substantially more than 2 or 3 non-trivial mentions. As requested, sources have been added to support the biographical information using multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. The burden of proof has been met. Alansohn 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply A search for 'Frank Finnerty Freeholder' at the same site did not return an item not from The Press of Atlantic City until item #73, which is from Vineland, NJ. Vineland borders Atlantic County, so it's within the scope of local coverage. The first item that could be considered 'non-local' is #133 from the Newark Star-Ledger. That's 14 pages deep into the search. Out of 195 items and 20 pages of search, I found three items from Newark and two from East Brunswick. The only out-of-state mentions were from Doylestown, PA., which could still be considered local to Atlantic City. Reliable and verifiable, but still just local. DarkAudit 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- 'Reply I can only deal with real Wikipedia policy. Please point me to the Wikipedia policy that invalidates The Press of Atlantic City as a source. Alansohn 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply When it is virtually the only source, it does not rise to the level of notability expected of WP:BIO. The only news items outside of the Atlantic City metro area were buried in the bottom of the search. The source isn't invalid, but it is insufficient. DarkAudit 14:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply The Atlantic City metro area is a rather large one. The WP:RS source is reliable. Wikiepdia policy requires multiple sources, not multiple publications. If you believe this to be Wikiepdia policy you have to do a much better job of demonstrating the claim. Other than your arbitrary and invalid claim requiring coverage in multiple publications, the article stands as notable. Alansohn 14:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply When it is virtually the only source, it does not rise to the level of notability expected of WP:BIO. The only news items outside of the Atlantic City metro area were buried in the bottom of the search. The source isn't invalid, but it is insufficient. DarkAudit 14:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- 'Reply I can only deal with real Wikipedia policy. Please point me to the Wikipedia policy that invalidates The Press of Atlantic City as a source. Alansohn 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply A search for 'Frank Finnerty Freeholder' at the same site did not return an item not from The Press of Atlantic City until item #73, which is from Vineland, NJ. Vineland borders Atlantic County, so it's within the scope of local coverage. The first item that could be considered 'non-local' is #133 from the Newark Star-Ledger. That's 14 pages deep into the search. Out of 195 items and 20 pages of search, I found three items from Newark and two from East Brunswick. The only out-of-state mentions were from Doylestown, PA., which could still be considered local to Atlantic City. Reliable and verifiable, but still just local. DarkAudit 04:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't a courtroom; there's no burden of proof. There's consensus. All the sources added are from the local newspaper. While it's true that Jimbo once said Wikipedia is intended to be the "sum of all human knowledge", he lied. It's an encyclopedia, and some stuff just doesn't make the cut. I know that there's a swingset in the backyard of my childhood home, but no one cares. WP:BIO is purposely written so that not all local politicians are notable, and Frank Finnerty isn't. -- NORTH talk 04:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply There is a consensus. The consensus on this article is Keep. This bad-faith nomination aims exclusively at undermining consensus. Please point out the supposed Wikipedia criteria that defines a newspaper publishing 75,000-100,000 issues per day as a "local paper", and therefore invalidates the ample sources provided. So far, the score is Frank Finnerty, 9 sources - Your swing set, zero. Don't address non-existent articles with no sources. Please address the current article and try to find a real Wikipedia policy that invalidates the ample sources provided. I won't even touch calling Jimbo a liar. Alansohn 12:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Agreeing with Mwelch. Moreover, there is fairly established consensus for the inclusion of officeholders/seekers, and this is clearly well below the threshold it lays out. Eusebeus 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I find no bad faith here. The original discussion had "no consensus" on this article. The second AfD (which was the first to specifically address just this article) was deemed "Keep" when a handful of editors responded in agreement to this post:
Speedy Keep - I had stepped away from my computer for lunch only to see that during my brief break, the article had reached a no consensus for an AfD, and that it was being resubmitted for deletion, all within a span of 46 minutes. While I will do my best to assume good faith, it is very hard to accept that this is not just another attempt to undo an AfD that just failed. As with the Sue Schilling AfD, can I politely suggest that as a genuine show of good faith this AfD be withdrawn and that a period of time — say several weeks or a few months — be allowed after the rejected AfD to allow the article sufficient time to be improved to allow the article to better meet the WP:BIO concerns. Alansohn 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's now eight months since that was written... I think that's long enough. --Dweller 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply The article has been approved with nearly a dozen sources. Address the article in question, as I have, and while you're at it, please show me the eight-month deadline in Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Eh? I don't know what you mean by "deadline". In the last AfD you asked for "several weeks or a few months"; it's been eight months. I addressed the article in question way up there ↑ --Dweller 14:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article has been improved. There are multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Are you addressing this article or the AfD from eight months ago? Alansohn 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sigh. I addressed the article above. Here, I'm addressing your comment at the top of this AfD, where you throw mud at the nominator. All I'm saying is that this is unfair... he has waited far longer than you requested in the last AfD. On the basis of what you wrote in the last AfD, it is entirely appropriate for the article to be reconsidered for deletion now. --Dweller 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are you addressing this article or just trying to undo what happened eight months ago? Alansohn 15:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand this question; I think I've made myself adequately clear. --Dweller 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have offered no reference to Wikipedia policy that would justify deletion of an article that uses multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, in compliance with WP:BIO. Address this article. Alansohn 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you read this AfD. You'll find my comments about this article at the top of this AfD. I'm trying, very patiently, to tell you here that this is not a bad faith nomination. --Dweller 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am just as patiently emphasizing that this article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, and that it should be evaluated on its own merits, as specified at WP:BIO. Alansohn 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Check with any university level researcher, and they will tell you that nine articles from one newspaper does not count as either multiple or independent. The Philadelphia Inquirer is independent of the Press of Atlantic City, but the Press of Atlantic City is not independent of itself. DarkAudit 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I could check with a "university level researcher", but that would be original research. Independent means of each other; you can't use ten articles about the same event to show notability; ten separate articles from the same source would be OK. Provide a Wikipedia source that supports your interpretation. Are you saying that one more article from a different source would prove notability? Alansohn 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Check with any university level researcher, and they will tell you that nine articles from one newspaper does not count as either multiple or independent. The Philadelphia Inquirer is independent of the Press of Atlantic City, but the Press of Atlantic City is not independent of itself. DarkAudit 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am just as patiently emphasizing that this article provides multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, and that it should be evaluated on its own merits, as specified at WP:BIO. Alansohn 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest you read this AfD. You'll find my comments about this article at the top of this AfD. I'm trying, very patiently, to tell you here that this is not a bad faith nomination. --Dweller 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- You have offered no reference to Wikipedia policy that would justify deletion of an article that uses multiple, non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, in compliance with WP:BIO. Address this article. Alansohn 15:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand this question; I think I've made myself adequately clear. --Dweller 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are you addressing this article or just trying to undo what happened eight months ago? Alansohn 15:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh. I addressed the article above. Here, I'm addressing your comment at the top of this AfD, where you throw mud at the nominator. All I'm saying is that this is unfair... he has waited far longer than you requested in the last AfD. On the basis of what you wrote in the last AfD, it is entirely appropriate for the article to be reconsidered for deletion now. --Dweller 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The article has been improved. There are multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Are you addressing this article or the AfD from eight months ago? Alansohn 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Eh? I don't know what you mean by "deadline". In the last AfD you asked for "several weeks or a few months"; it's been eight months. I addressed the article in question way up there ↑ --Dweller 14:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply The article has been approved with nearly a dozen sources. Address the article in question, as I have, and while you're at it, please show me the eight-month deadline in Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Orange County, CA metro area is even larger, and articles about local politicians from that area have been deleted for not having notability outside the local coverage area. WP:BIO has this to say about politicians: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Atlantic County, NJ does not meet that guideline, just as Allegheny County, PA or Monongalia County, WV would fail, as well. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This is the sticking point. He has received virtually no press coverage outside of his local area. That shows a distinct lack of notability. "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." That speaks for itself. DarkAudit 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid reason for deletion. Nine sources meets the "significant press coverage" standard. Alansohn 15:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comments galore. There is always an obligation to keep improving articles. This comment is particularly troubling. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles consisting of a singly paragraph on questionably notable people is not the eventual goal. Even if there was consensus that the article met standards in August, that doesn't mean that there's consensus now. Both consensus and the standards can change.
- That being said, there wasn't consensus to keep the article in August. Have you actually read the prior nomination? "The result was keep, though consensus backs that clearly on the basis that the previous AfD was so recent." Well, the previous AfD is no longer so recent, thus that "consensus" is no longer valid. Furthermore, have you seen the actual !votes? To paraphrase:
- Speedy keep based on my inability to assume good faith, and because the prior AfD only closed 46 minutes ago.
- Keep for now, on the condition that it be approved.
- Keep per a rather weak precedent.
- Speedy keep based on someone else's inability to assume good faith.
- Delete per WP:BIO. The only one to cite anything resembling an actual reason.
- Note that the logic of the prior AfD being 46 minutes ago isn't particularly valid. If a blanket AfD closes by no consensus, it's a perfectly reasonable reaction to renominate the articles separately.
- The Press of Atlantic City is not significant press coverage. For "Please point out the supposed Wikipedia criteria that defines a newspaper publishing 75,000-100,000 issues per day as a "local paper", I'd say you're quite confused on the definition of the word local. "From, or in, a near by location." That sounds like Atlantic City to me. DarkAudit wasn't trying to cite OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. If there is precedent for deleting the local politicians of Orange County, I'd have preferred he link to an actual discussion demonstrating that. He was also pointing out that this isn't a personal vendetta against you and the great state of New Jersey. The freeholders of other counties in other states would be non-notable as well.
- I'm sure there was more I wanted to say/respond to, but I can't think of it at the moment. Oh well, there's always next time. -- NORTH talk 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply Gladly. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trung Nguyen. Larger 'local' area by a wide margin, yet still not considered notable enough. DarkAudit 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Orange County officials are utterly irrelevant and set no precedent, whether they exist or do not per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The article has been improved, as requested. I've sat down and done the research to add multiple, independent, reliable sources. Why are you still fighting the last AfD, and not addressing the notability of this article, as it exists. I make no claim of a personal vendetta; I simply state that the article meets all relevant criteria of notability. Alansohn 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I disagree. An Orange County school board member unknown outside of Orange County who has received no press coverage outside of Orange County is quite relevant to the discussion of an Atlantic County freeholder unknown outside of Atlantic County who has received no press coverage outside of Atlantic County. No one is fighting the last AfD. Rather, I'm fighting your comments in this AfD that bear a striking resemblance to the comments you made in that one (i.e. I'd like to assume good faith but I can't; we've already decided this; etc.). -- NORTH talk 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply The "precedent" is irrelevant. No school board members have Wikipedia articles, thousands of elected officials do; if anything precedent supports this article overwhelmingly. This individual has been elected to the top position within the Board of County Freeholders. Furthermore, your "source" is relying on a statement made by the nominator himself. This article uses multiple real sources. Alansohn 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- In many places, school board members are elected officials. So what makes a freeholder more notable than a school board member? A freeholder is more likely to have significant press coverage. However, Frank Finnerty does not.
- (Also, what source? I made no reference to any source, nor did I say anything relying on the nominator...) -- NORTH talk 19:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply This article provides nine, independent reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, and should be evaluated on its own merits, as specified at WP:BIO. Where did you obtain your definition of "significant press coverage" that excludes the ample sources provided? Alansohn 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- An Atlantic City newspaper talking about something in Atlantic City isn't exactly significant. -- NORTH talk 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's a South Jersey newspaper covering a sequence of multiple Atlantic County events, all of them newsworthy and non-trivial. Not unlike the New York Times covering a New York City issue. Again, this is just your own personal bias, and is not based on any relevant Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a personal bias that New York is more important than Atlantic City. Also, important issues, ones that truly make mayors of New York notable, are going to be discussed by newspapers around the country, if not the world. On a smaller scale, notable events in Newark are likely to be discussed in The Trenton Times. But I don't see the events concerning Atlantic County freeholders being discussed anywhere except Atlantic County. -- NORTH talk 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can you point me to the specifically relevant Wikipedia policy that states that area coverage from an area newspaper makes the source invalid for use as a reference. Alansohn 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a personal bias that New York is more important than Atlantic City. Also, important issues, ones that truly make mayors of New York notable, are going to be discussed by newspapers around the country, if not the world. On a smaller scale, notable events in Newark are likely to be discussed in The Trenton Times. But I don't see the events concerning Atlantic County freeholders being discussed anywhere except Atlantic County. -- NORTH talk 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's a South Jersey newspaper covering a sequence of multiple Atlantic County events, all of them newsworthy and non-trivial. Not unlike the New York Times covering a New York City issue. Again, this is just your own personal bias, and is not based on any relevant Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- An Atlantic City newspaper talking about something in Atlantic City isn't exactly significant. -- NORTH talk 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply This article provides nine, independent reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, and should be evaluated on its own merits, as specified at WP:BIO. Where did you obtain your definition of "significant press coverage" that excludes the ample sources provided? Alansohn 20:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply The "precedent" is irrelevant. No school board members have Wikipedia articles, thousands of elected officials do; if anything precedent supports this article overwhelmingly. This individual has been elected to the top position within the Board of County Freeholders. Furthermore, your "source" is relying on a statement made by the nominator himself. This article uses multiple real sources. Alansohn 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. An Orange County school board member unknown outside of Orange County who has received no press coverage outside of Orange County is quite relevant to the discussion of an Atlantic County freeholder unknown outside of Atlantic County who has received no press coverage outside of Atlantic County. No one is fighting the last AfD. Rather, I'm fighting your comments in this AfD that bear a striking resemblance to the comments you made in that one (i.e. I'd like to assume good faith but I can't; we've already decided this; etc.). -- NORTH talk 19:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment We are well into WP:DEADHORSE territory here. It's obvious that no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you that a local politician needs to be notable outside his own district to meet most editors' interpretation of WP:BIO, and that a single newspaper, no matter how many different times it mentions someone, will still be seen as one source in many peoples' eyes. DarkAudit 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Show me a Wikipedia policy that requires deletion of this article and I'm convinced. The article provides multiple, independent, reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Rebut this claim by reference to a relevant Wikipedia policy and I will be more than happy to change my vote. What can I do to convince you that this article is indeed notable? Alansohn 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Nothing. So probably best to stop trying. Everyone who has contributed to this debate is firmly entrenched in their position, so there is very little point in the already-involved editors continuing to argue with one another. This is not the first time this issue has come up. The "what if references are in some local paper only" question has come up in a myriad of AfD debates. There has long been a strong sentiment that that is often not enough. But no one has yet found a satisfactory way to codify that sentiment into WP:BIO such that the specific wording of the sentiment 1) garners a general consensus, 2) is written so that the standard for when other papers are required is not subjective and 3) wouldn't result in obviously notable articles winding up in AfD just because they are sourced by, say, an investigation run solely by the New York Times. So, no, you will not find this "local only is sometimes not good enough" sentiment codified in WP:BIO. We all admit that, OK? That is granted. That fact does not automatically invalidate the sentiment, however. Inclusionists often weigh in on AfD debates and voice a "keep" opinion even as they acknowledge happily that the subject comes nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. They do this because they don't care what WP:BIO says and are happy to tell you so. And there is nothing wrong with that. That is their opinion. It simply gets contributed to the whole debate like everyone else's and then we see where the consensus in that debate turns out. If that inclusionist sentiment proves to be the consensus on a particular AFD candidate, then it will be kept, even if it doesn't technically meet WP:BIO. I, and obviously others, feel this is a case where "local paper only" notability is not sufficient. Clearly, you disagree. And we all grant that the letter of WP:BIO doesn't specifically back our position. OK? These points are all made and made and made again in the above. So whatever new editors (if they have the patience to actually wade through all of the above — no small feat) who now come upon this debate can see all of the arguments now, decide in which camp their personal opinion falls, and then vote accordingly. You have done an excellent and commendable job of taking an article that had originally no defense of its notability (zero cited sources) and at least giving it a defensible position (multiple reliable source mentions, albeit all from a single newspaper). Sincere kudos on doing that. Some (like you) will feel that's good enough; others (like me) won't. The AfD process is a recognition of the fact that these difference of opinion are inevitable. That's why the whole point is to take in the full consensus of editors. If enough editors agree with you that the strict letter of WP:BIO is what should carry the day, then that will be the consensus. If not, it won't. And since this is not a strict numerical vote, but rather a discussion in which the closing admin will consider the strength of the respective arguments in deciding the consensus, then the fact that the letter of WP:BIO backs your position may weigh to your advantage there, also. And that's fine. If that admin says something like, "After discounting the "delete" votes because their reasoning isn't backed by the letter of WP:BIO, the consensus is keep.", then I can certainly live with that. But in any event, there's no need for everybody to keep saying the same things over and over again here. Mwelch 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is why the AfD process is so fundamentally screwed up. There are simply no rules. An article that fully meets WP:BIO, will be deleted. Why? Because "we all grant that the letter of WP:BIO doesn't specifically back our position" but refuse to actually abide by it. I have followed through on my side of the bargain, improving the article with ample sources. But, solely based on whim and personal bias, a majority will vote to delete it. Why we do we bother wasting our time defining explicit policies if they will simply be ignored when inconvenient? Alansohn 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Hmm. I'm not sure against whom I'm being accused of harboring a personal bias. You? Mr. Finnerty? I'm sure each of you is a fine individual, and I don't know either of you, nor know enough about either of you to have any basis whatsoever for harboring a personal bias against either of you. I know nothing of Mr. Finnerty, and my impression of you is that you're a perfectly reasonable and intelligent person exercising genuine good faith, and with whom I just happen to have an honest difference of opinion on this matter. No big deal. And I also do express my opinion merely on a "whim". But I would agree that your dissatisfaction seems to be with the whole AfD process, as it is structured, more than anything else. WP:BIO is not defined as a policy. It is a guideline. By definition, it is intended to be used as a guide, but also to be tempered by editors' judgment with the full expectation that there will be exceptions, and that when the resepctive judgments of different editors about those guidelines conflict with one another, it is consensus that will decide which way carries the day. That is why, with regard to the "bargain", I said at the outset that as far as I was concerned, I'd want to see more sources than just The Press of Atlantic City — that was and is my judgment. WP:FIVE are the only things firm around here. Everthing else is flexible by design. I am generally guided by WP:BIO. In general, my AfD opinions will fall along WP:BIO lines. But neither I, nor anyone else, is absolutely bound by it when declaring an AfD opinion. And I especially will not be bound by it when I know full well that, as I mentioned above, there is a strong and frequently expressed editorial sentiment (that a single local newspaper is not always enough) coming from many others beside myself, even if that sentiment hasn't been expressly codified in the guideline. I'd suggest (and I mean suggest respectfully, not antagonistically) that if you're already convinced that despite the fact that the strict letter of WP:BIO is more aligned with your position than ours, you still expect the majority of editors to vote to delete, perhaps that is a sign that at some level, even you yourself have sensed that that sentiment is the general consensus of Wikipedia editors, even though it hasn't been codified of WP:BIO. Mwelch 07:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is why the AfD process is so fundamentally screwed up. There are simply no rules. An article that fully meets WP:BIO, will be deleted. Why? Because "we all grant that the letter of WP:BIO doesn't specifically back our position" but refuse to actually abide by it. I have followed through on my side of the bargain, improving the article with ample sources. But, solely based on whim and personal bias, a majority will vote to delete it. Why we do we bother wasting our time defining explicit policies if they will simply be ignored when inconvenient? Alansohn 06:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Nothing. So probably best to stop trying. Everyone who has contributed to this debate is firmly entrenched in their position, so there is very little point in the already-involved editors continuing to argue with one another. This is not the first time this issue has come up. The "what if references are in some local paper only" question has come up in a myriad of AfD debates. There has long been a strong sentiment that that is often not enough. But no one has yet found a satisfactory way to codify that sentiment into WP:BIO such that the specific wording of the sentiment 1) garners a general consensus, 2) is written so that the standard for when other papers are required is not subjective and 3) wouldn't result in obviously notable articles winding up in AfD just because they are sourced by, say, an investigation run solely by the New York Times. So, no, you will not find this "local only is sometimes not good enough" sentiment codified in WP:BIO. We all admit that, OK? That is granted. That fact does not automatically invalidate the sentiment, however. Inclusionists often weigh in on AfD debates and voice a "keep" opinion even as they acknowledge happily that the subject comes nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. They do this because they don't care what WP:BIO says and are happy to tell you so. And there is nothing wrong with that. That is their opinion. It simply gets contributed to the whole debate like everyone else's and then we see where the consensus in that debate turns out. If that inclusionist sentiment proves to be the consensus on a particular AFD candidate, then it will be kept, even if it doesn't technically meet WP:BIO. I, and obviously others, feel this is a case where "local paper only" notability is not sufficient. Clearly, you disagree. And we all grant that the letter of WP:BIO doesn't specifically back our position. OK? These points are all made and made and made again in the above. So whatever new editors (if they have the patience to actually wade through all of the above — no small feat) who now come upon this debate can see all of the arguments now, decide in which camp their personal opinion falls, and then vote accordingly. You have done an excellent and commendable job of taking an article that had originally no defense of its notability (zero cited sources) and at least giving it a defensible position (multiple reliable source mentions, albeit all from a single newspaper). Sincere kudos on doing that. Some (like you) will feel that's good enough; others (like me) won't. The AfD process is a recognition of the fact that these difference of opinion are inevitable. That's why the whole point is to take in the full consensus of editors. If enough editors agree with you that the strict letter of WP:BIO is what should carry the day, then that will be the consensus. If not, it won't. And since this is not a strict numerical vote, but rather a discussion in which the closing admin will consider the strength of the respective arguments in deciding the consensus, then the fact that the letter of WP:BIO backs your position may weigh to your advantage there, also. And that's fine. If that admin says something like, "After discounting the "delete" votes because their reasoning isn't backed by the letter of WP:BIO, the consensus is keep.", then I can certainly live with that. But in any event, there's no need for everybody to keep saying the same things over and over again here. Mwelch 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Show me a Wikipedia policy that requires deletion of this article and I'm convinced. The article provides multiple, independent, reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Rebut this claim by reference to a relevant Wikipedia policy and I will be more than happy to change my vote. What can I do to convince you that this article is indeed notable? Alansohn 00:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Part of the reason for insistence on multiple sources, it seems to me, is that it provides a backstop for checking the reliability of the information: relying on one single source is means that any problems with source would go undetected. For all we know, it could be a paper published by Frank Finnerty's uncle Keith or employing his cousin Peter, or it be a sworn enemy of Frank Finnerty, etc. Equally, the fact that Finnerty gets little or no reliable-source traction outside of his home county -- and seemingly barely within it -- argues explicitly for a Delete. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Insufficient!=Invalid. DarkAudit 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply, hopefully the last thing I'll have to say. When Alansohn asks, "Why we do we bother wasting our time defining explicit policies if they will simply be ignored when inconvenient?", the first reaction should be WP:BIO isn't explicit policy. It's a guideline. Furthermore, IMHO, my opinion is backed up by WP:BIO, since I don't feel an Atlantic City newspaper talking about an Atlantic County freeholder qualifies as significant press coverage. Can I show you a specific guideline that says it isn't? No. Can you show me one that says it is? No. It's just our individual interpretation of the word significant. -- NORTH talk 20:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply WP:BIO states "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." That number 6 is a footnote for the word "independent", which states "Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable)." It cannot be any clearer that the word "independent" restricts two sources about the same basic event, not two (or many more) references from the same source. This individual and this article mets this criteria. Can you explain why you continue to refuse to abide by an explicit Wikipedia guideline, a policy that the nominator himself deems relevant? Alansohn 11:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Because it's not an explicit guideline. The only thing set in anything close to stone is WP:FIVE. You keep asking to be shown the explicit policy that supports a position. It doesn't exist. Thanks to WP:IAR, there's no explicit policy that supports anyone's position here. We're allowed to ignore the rules because excpt for some very special cases, there are no rules. DarkAudit 13:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply WP:BIO states "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." That number 6 is a footnote for the word "independent", which states "Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable)." It cannot be any clearer that the word "independent" restricts two sources about the same basic event, not two (or many more) references from the same source. This individual and this article mets this criteria. Can you explain why you continue to refuse to abide by an explicit Wikipedia guideline, a policy that the nominator himself deems relevant? Alansohn 11:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Calton. Arbustoo 05:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Mwelch. MetsFan76 13:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment perhaps I can help with the notability v RS question. If the caretaker (janitor) of a school was quoted in all of the world's quality press following an unfortunate incident at the school that had nothing to do with him, he would be the subject of multiple, non-trivial reliable sources. However, he still wouldn't be notable. The notability guidelines establish a minimum bar that must be jumped, but it's a minimum, not a maximum. Just because you've made it into the Nowheresville Recorder on umpteen occassions, doesn't prove notability. --Dweller 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply You haven't helped at all, nor do you demonstrate an understanding of either WP:N or the WP:RS policy. Mr. Finnerty has been mentioned in hundreds of articles. The nine sources selected are all articles where Finnerty is the primary subject. These are not mere mentions. What you have done is misinterpreted and subverted a rather clear policy as an excuse for deletion of an article where WP:N has been established rather explicitly. It is only through denying the existence of a clear Wikipedia policy that such notability is being denied. As has becoming tradition, where policy is in clear contradiction to a poorly thought out and unjustified vote, the strategy is to deny it applies or to claim that it means something completely different. Alansohn 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- He means absolutely nothing to anyone outside the Atlantic City area His accomplishments have been met with less than a yawn in his own state. I do not believe he meets WP:BIO. I have said why I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. And because of WP:IAR I don't have to do anything else. You're asking for a policy that doesn't exist, by trying to cite a policy that doesn't exist. Policy is bunk. Precedent is bunk. Like it or not, those are good things. DarkAudit 15:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no outside of area policy. The text of WP:BIO has been cited, yet you persistently refuse to acknowledge the straightforward definition. Your only justification for your actions is that no rules apply whatsoever. You have not only acknowledged that you have no basis whatsoever to justify your vote, you are stating that any policy that exists doesn't apply to you. At least we're clear that your participation is completely invalid. How can you justify participating in this process and using WP:BIO as an excuse for your vote, while insisting that rules don't apply? Alansohn 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote, it's a discussion. Please read WP:IAR. You are trying to find something set in stone that does not exist, and has never existed. WP:BIO is not set in stone, and will probably never be set in stone. It is up to each editor to interpret that guideline themselves. I have done so. It is then up to each editor to explain why they interpret the guideline in that way. I have also done that. There are no absolutes here. A continued effort to try to find some will only result in disappointment. DarkAudit 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's no discussion going on here. It's all a bunch of Just Not Notable, either shrouded in reference to Wikipedia policy or just plain and simple stating that no Wikipedia policy exists. It seems a bit contradictory to claim that there are no rules and then claim that I should read the rules and follow them. There are rules or there are none. You've argued it both ways, sometimes in the same sentence. It is only rather selective and disingenuous misinterpretation or direct ignorance of Wikipedia policy that you have used to "justify" your vote. Alansohn 19:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- What part of this is not a vote did you miss? I keep pointing you to WP:FIVE and WP:IAR because they are the only policies of Wikipedia that are anywhere near concrete. Everything else is a guideline that is constantly evolving. You're asking us to bullseye a target that is either constantly moving or completely non-existant. The way I read WP:BIO in regards to local politicians is that this man has not done enough to gain sufficient notice outside of what would generally be considered his home district to warrant an article. That is my standard for local politicians. That is my standard and my interpretation of the guideline. The final word will come from the closing admin based on the arguments presented by all participants, though. DarkAudit 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's no discussion going on here. It's all a bunch of Just Not Notable, either shrouded in reference to Wikipedia policy or just plain and simple stating that no Wikipedia policy exists. It seems a bit contradictory to claim that there are no rules and then claim that I should read the rules and follow them. There are rules or there are none. You've argued it both ways, sometimes in the same sentence. It is only rather selective and disingenuous misinterpretation or direct ignorance of Wikipedia policy that you have used to "justify" your vote. Alansohn 19:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote, it's a discussion. Please read WP:IAR. You are trying to find something set in stone that does not exist, and has never existed. WP:BIO is not set in stone, and will probably never be set in stone. It is up to each editor to interpret that guideline themselves. I have done so. It is then up to each editor to explain why they interpret the guideline in that way. I have also done that. There are no absolutes here. A continued effort to try to find some will only result in disappointment. DarkAudit 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is no outside of area policy. The text of WP:BIO has been cited, yet you persistently refuse to acknowledge the straightforward definition. Your only justification for your actions is that no rules apply whatsoever. You have not only acknowledged that you have no basis whatsoever to justify your vote, you are stating that any policy that exists doesn't apply to you. At least we're clear that your participation is completely invalid. How can you justify participating in this process and using WP:BIO as an excuse for your vote, while insisting that rules don't apply? Alansohn 16:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- He means absolutely nothing to anyone outside the Atlantic City area His accomplishments have been met with less than a yawn in his own state. I do not believe he meets WP:BIO. I have said why I don't believe he meets WP:BIO. And because of WP:IAR I don't have to do anything else. You're asking for a policy that doesn't exist, by trying to cite a policy that doesn't exist. Policy is bunk. Precedent is bunk. Like it or not, those are good things. DarkAudit 15:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply You haven't helped at all, nor do you demonstrate an understanding of either WP:N or the WP:RS policy. Mr. Finnerty has been mentioned in hundreds of articles. The nine sources selected are all articles where Finnerty is the primary subject. These are not mere mentions. What you have done is misinterpreted and subverted a rather clear policy as an excuse for deletion of an article where WP:N has been established rather explicitly. It is only through denying the existence of a clear Wikipedia policy that such notability is being denied. As has becoming tradition, where policy is in clear contradiction to a poorly thought out and unjustified vote, the strategy is to deny it applies or to claim that it means something completely different. Alansohn 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- To quote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, having been covered only in local media does not generally satisfy the "significant press coverage" criterion for notability. -- NORTH talk 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- So now the Ignore All Rules crowd returns to rules when they think it supports their cause. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes states explicitly that "'This page is not policy. [emphasis in original] This page is for quick, easy-to-follow tips. Detailed rules, guidelines, and suggestions should go on the various notability policy pages instead." Thus the relevant policy is at WP:BIO. The next sentence, selectively omitted states "Candidates for municipal election are not notable; these should only have articles if they already meet other criteria for inclusion." As all other criteria have been met, WP:BIO is satisfied. Alansohn 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey now, I never cited WP:IAR. There's no "crowd", we all have our own opinions. I've always said my opinion is backed up by WP:BIO, one of these so-called rules. WP:BIO has not been met if your interpretation of it is that local media does not satisfy significant press coverage, which, apparently, is a relatively common interpretation. -- NORTH talk 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any coverage that would satisfy your own unique interpretation of WP:BIO? Alansohn 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Something that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et al. might help. I'd have thought that was perfectly clear given the definition of the word local. And I like how you've characterized my interpretation as unique given what I just said. -- NORTH talk 21:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is an interpretation unsupported by what WP:BIO actually says. Alansohn 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Saying that "major local political figures" need to "have received significant press coverage" isn't supported by WP:BIO? Oh dear me, I need to have my eyes checked. Now, it is true that Footnote 4 does provide a definition of significant press coverage, saying merely that it's someone who "has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles," saying nothing about whether or not those news articles have to be significant. Well, it seems we have a problem then. And it's not with me or my interpretation. WP:BIO is a guideline, which means it needs to reflect consensus. The Common Outcomes page (as well as the 7-1 !vote here) shows that consensus lies elsewhere on the definition of significant. Fortunately, WP:BIO also says, "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits." -- NORTH talk 22:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it is an interpretation unsupported by what WP:BIO actually says. Alansohn 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Something that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et al. might help. I'd have thought that was perfectly clear given the definition of the word local. And I like how you've characterized my interpretation as unique given what I just said. -- NORTH talk 21:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any coverage that would satisfy your own unique interpretation of WP:BIO? Alansohn 22:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hey now, I never cited WP:IAR. There's no "crowd", we all have our own opinions. I've always said my opinion is backed up by WP:BIO, one of these so-called rules. WP:BIO has not been met if your interpretation of it is that local media does not satisfy significant press coverage, which, apparently, is a relatively common interpretation. -- NORTH talk 21:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- So now the Ignore All Rules crowd returns to rules when they think it supports their cause. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes states explicitly that "'This page is not policy. [emphasis in original] This page is for quick, easy-to-follow tips. Detailed rules, guidelines, and suggestions should go on the various notability policy pages instead." Thus the relevant policy is at WP:BIO. The next sentence, selectively omitted states "Candidates for municipal election are not notable; these should only have articles if they already meet other criteria for inclusion." As all other criteria have been met, WP:BIO is satisfied. Alansohn 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
