Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Astorino

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 of the debate was delete. -- Kjkolb 06:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Astorino

Delete super-duper vanity article for a county legislator - a VERY minor type of politician way below normal inclusion metrics - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unredeemable self-puffery NawlinWiki 11:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I think he is sufficiently notable, but the article is not NPOV, and there is not effort at referencing reliable secondary sources; indeed, much of the material in the article does not appear to me to be verifiable. I think it is redeeamable with careful attention to NPOV and sourcing, but having two serious flaws causes me to vote delete, at this time. snug 13:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep I found 5 New York Times hits in ProQuest. Astorino has been accused of taking direction from Entergy, operators of the Indian Point nuke. I think he is notable enough, info is verifiable (albeit not verified), would be nice if some of the NYT info found its way in, but I don't have time. snug 18:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like his personal campaign material and/or press release. --DarkAudit 15:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is better now. He's not just a politician; he has some accomplishments as a broadcast executive. 70.30.153.135 16:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC) TruthbringerToronto 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per snug. Lemonsawdust 20:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Very minor politician with non-notable acccomplishments as media executive. Bwithh 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, fails WP:NPOV. Article fails to assert notability. --Coredesat 21:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per snugspout's original vote. I think the onus is on anyone who wants this info in Wikipedia to improve the article, and if it doesn't happen soon, it probably won't happen for months. Mangojuice^talk 23:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, I put a little in that I abstracted from NY Times articles. I also further worked on NPOV. I think the article is above threshold, although if I took time to put NY Times hyperlinks in, it would be even better. But the standard is verifiable, not verified. snug 00:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 15:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep His political career and broadcasting accomplishments are enough to make him notable. --Cheapestcostavoider 03:23, 27 June 2006 (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.