Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John H. Stamler

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. Consensus was not able to be established during the course of this discussion. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Stamler

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

County prosecutor that does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Outside of an obituary, the only mentions of him are routine during coverage of crimes that he prosecuted. Rusf10 (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of this nomination is disputed, as POLITICIAN has no limitation for "routine", and there is no evidence that the "mentions" are based on a WP:BEFORE D1 source search. Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county prosecutors are rarely notable for such, and nothing of the coverage is enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of this !vote is disputed, as there is no evidence that "the coverage" refers to source searches, especially since the !vote found no significant GNG coverage to discuss. Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again excellent referencing with the NYT obit and an AP obit, you can't really ask for more impeccable sourcing to meet the GNG standard for a standalone biography. That anyone would argue that "nothing of the coverage is enough to pass the general notability guidelines" is rather silly. --RAN (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputably about him meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A NYT obit is a strong indicator of Wikipedia GNG notability. Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC) Clarification: GNG begins, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources..." Sources is plural, so editors can know that one source does not satisfy GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Appears to be some bundok prosecutor with no notibility elsewhere. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of this !vote is disputed, as there is evidence that it is an inflammatory and prejudicial ~~personal attack~~. Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as Stamler was never a Wikipedia editor, and is instead the content, NPA does not apply. I'd suggest you read up on WP:HORSEMEAT oder WP:GOI. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so as not to have this confused with WP:NPA, I have struck the words to which you have objected. Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed as keep based on a misreading of the nom statement. Now that that's been pointed out, there's no clear consensus yet that notability is met, since the obituaries are disputed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- so there is no confusion about my above statement, I was pointing out the the obituary was routine coverage and in the other sources Stamler was not the subject of the article, the sources merely mentioned or quoted him. I do not believe this meets GNG. Two of the keep arguments are (wrongly imo) based off of the assumption that a New York Times obituary equals automatic notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, in your nomination, you stipulated that "an obituary" was not part of the "routine" coverage of crimes he prosecuted. Now your statement is that "the obituary" is "routine", but there are two obituaries.
"John Stamler named citizen of the Year" is not mere mentions or quoting him. "John Harry Stamler (December 3, 1938 – March 25, 1990)" is not mere mentions or quoting him.
Your post here misrepresents me for claiming "automatic notability" for the NYT obit, as my actual words are "a strong indicator". Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if this guy has ten obituaries, it doesn't establish notability. And the citizen of the year award by the "Memorial General Development Foundation" is a joke because no one has ever heard of that foundation, it's not a notable award.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This person seems noteworthy to me. Jefstevens (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From this diff of 30 December 2017, we have DGG saying, "As for the NYT obits, I can think of only one or two from the 20th century where it was not held decisive--even for socialites without any particular accomplishments." Unscintillating (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I thought that was pretty clear, but maybe User:DGG will clarify. Unscintillating (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: give it a rest. I usually wouldn't mention it, but if there ever was a textbook example of WP:BLUDGEON, this would be it.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, your fifth post here was to complain that an editor who had made three posts was bludgeoning. Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your math is a little off, this would be my fifth post since the opening. You had six prior to my last post. Stating that you dispute every single comment that everyone makes here really is not the way to go. --Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with my math, I just checked it. Do you want me to list the times of each edit so you can verify? Unscintillating (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can do whatever you want, I'm not going to waste my time with this. You must have some special wikilawyer way of counting.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilawyer counting? I'm wondering if that might be like if someone on their sixth post said, "this would be my fifth post since the opening": i.e., 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That no more than one or two people with editorial obits in the NYT from the 20th century is not opinion. It's a fact, to the best of my knowledge. (If I'm wrong, it can be disproven) That we should continue doing what we have almost always done -- that's an opinion. I think it's a more reasonable opinion than that we should ignore what we have almost always done. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I do not concur that obit(s) in sig. sources lends auto-notability.Winged Blades^Godric 06:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not notable and fails WP:POLITICIAN. It is a "big push" that being listed in a NYT obit (or AP obit) confers, or is even "a strong indicator", of notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2018 (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.