Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr.

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. A clear consensus to delete Thomas J. Lynch Jr. and Ray Kramer. Joseph C. Irwin was withdrawn. As an aside, ad hominem comments are deprecated and carry little weight in a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Lynch Jr.

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

Non-notable county politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only source is freeholder meeting minutes (a primary source, without even a date provided. Rusf10 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all articles with the same notability problem and containing the same sourcing:

Delete All I agree re: lack of notability for all three.TH1980 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Joseph C. Irwin article says he was a part of the state assembly. If anyone has Newspapers.com account could they clip this article. [1] From the OCR Assemblyman Haydn Proctor, Brad- I ley Beach, and his Republican running mate, Joseph C. Irwin, in the face of nearly complete returns, were elected to the state assembly. The OCR usually messes some words up, best to read the actual paper if someone has access. That would pass WP:NPOL for him, but for the other two nothing as far as I can tell at the moment. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From Red Bank Register Newspaper Archives, two articles after his death confirming: Nov. 1 1987 Nov. 2 1987. I will be voting keep for Joseph C. Irwin only. Also there is about 50 years worth of articles that he is in, he would pass WP:GNG as well. I've updated the article with a little bit of information from the Nov. 1 source. WikiVirusC^(talk) 04:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other two as nothing seems to show them passing GNG, and I can't find any higher level than county offices held. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given proof that Irwin actually did serve in the state assembly, I withdraw support for deletion of that article only.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irwin aside, hyperlocal New Jersey politicians not otherwise independently notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Yet another in a series of problematic nominations from an editor who fails to read articles or understand Wikipedia:Deletion policy, WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE. Of the four articles Rusf10 targeted for mass deletion, two are for individuals who had served in the New Jersey General Assembly, including Joseph C. Irwin (listed here) and the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles H. Boud for which Rusf10 "accidentally nominated wrong article". For the other two articles, Rusf10 has been repeatedly admonished to consider alternatives to deletion and has persistently refused to do so. Both of the articles for non-Assembly members -- Ray Kramer and Thomas J. Lynch Jr. -- should have been considered for merge / redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors per policy, which Rusf10 stubbornly refuses to comply, and for which the nominator offers no explanation for refusing to consider the option to comply with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE, an approach that would have been supported by the overwhelming majority of editors. As stated in the header of this and every other AfD, and as ignored here, "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."
Two of the articles never should have been considered for deletion and the other two should default to merge / redirect. Rusf10 is zero for four here. Competence is required in Wikipedia, particularly in matters of deletion; Rusf10 has demonstrated a fundamental lack of competence here. After a speedy keep, the nominator should spend the requisite time to review and demonstrate a meaningful understanding of Wikipedia policy before any further such nominations and the disruption they cause. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey alansohn, its actually your competence that should be questioned. Time after time, you just post stuff without reading because of your "keep at all costs" philosophy. Here's a great example of your failure to read (or comprehend or maybe both) [2] Your explanation was that you copied the wrong thing. Well, if I'm not allowed to make mistakes, I guess you are not allowed either. Of course, I self-corrected by mistake almost immediately and so how would you know that I nominated Charles H. Boud for deletion? Well, that must be WP:STALKING, the very thing you try to accuse me of. So why don't you stop acting like a clown?--Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- as for the possibility of a merge, when someone produces some real sources to satisfy WP:V, maybe I'll consider it. As of right now, the articles a unsourced. The poorly cited freeholder minutes are not likely to contain biographical details of either subject.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:BEFORE both require *YOU*, as the nominator, to look for sources *BEFORE* you start a nomination; not to demand that other editors do your work for you. Are you saying that you searched for sources for both Kramer and Lynch and could not find a single source to confirm that either of them served as Freeholder Director of Monmouth County? Alansohn (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd remind both of you to remember WP:UNCIVIL. In light of this discussion, I'm keeping my delete vote: a freeholder director of Monmouth County is not inherently notable per WP:POLITICIAN, and with the exception of the state representatives must otherwise pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For officeholders at the county level, finding one source which confirms the holding of the role is not enough in and of itself to pass NPOL. Local politicians have to be shown as the subject of enough coverage to clear WP:GNG, not just single-sourced as existing, before they can be kept. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lynch and Kramer; I would have been a keep on Irwin because of the state legislature, but he's already been withdrawn. County freeholder is not a position that confers an automatic notability freebie on every person who's ever held it, but these articles are not sourced well enough to get them over WP:NPOL #2 as the subject of significant press coverage.
Please note, as well, that not everybody has equal access to all of the same possible resources to determine whether better sourcing is available or not — please read WP:ATTP, "be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." So arguments to the nominator's competence are to cease immediately — keep your arguments one way or the other on the matter of whether improved sourcing can be found or not. It's not enough to argue that adequate sourcing might exist: the existence of adequate sourcing needs to be shown, not merely theorized as possible, before "GNG is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily on what's already present in the article" is a valid keep rationale. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Thomas J. Lynch Jr. to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors Djflem (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ray Kramer to Mayor of Asbury Park, New Jersey Djflem (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion policy, WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE should prevail here.Djflem (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to nominator and others regarding Delete

Under which specific criteria cited in Wikipedia:BUNDLE are these articles being nominated in a group?

What is your response to proposed alternative to deletion if you still think the article should be deleted instead. Please elaborate why.Djflem (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We just went through this, read above, I am not going to repeat myself. As for WP:BUNDLE it says "Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together.", I don't know what you mean by "specific criteria".--Rusf10 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are the specific reasons you "feel" they should be deleted together?

What are the specific other specific criteria in WP:BUNDLE other than your ""feelings"?

As stated "Another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Please elaborate why.Djflem (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holding a small county-level office does not confer notability. Sources here are not substantial. Please nominate the rest of the non-notable officeholders on this list as well. Reywas92^Talk 21:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. I'm also seeing a pattern of "keep everything that has anything to do with NJ" from votes by AlanSohn, as pointed out previously by Rusf10, so I don't think those votes can be regarded as useful. Rockypedia (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in all AfDs: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why.". That has happened and there are appropriate targets.Djflem (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering all alternatives to deletion, I'd still recommend delete, with redirect the second choice. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ATD does not require the preservation of all content that has ever been added to Wikipedia at all — people attempt many types of content on here for which there's no encyclopedic reason to retain anywhere. In fact, there's a longstanding consensus that lists of officeholders are not supposed to contain extended mini-biographies of everybody who doesn't already have a standalone article to link to instead — I've noticed that in some of the recent AFD batches on smalltown mayors and New Jersey county freeholders, people have been trying to undermine that consensus by turning the lists into extended biographical dictionaries again, but that's not what they're supposed to be. If a person doesn't meet our inclusion standards to qualify for a standalone biographical article, then there's no purpose or value in just pasting that entire article verbatim into the list as a substitute, because that's a misuse of the list. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is meant to cover only individuals who have received covereage in reliable, secondary sources. It is not a place for original research. Thus an article that only is sourced to a primary source, the minutes of a government body, needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - position is apparently not inherently notable, and there's insufficient coverage of him in the media. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:11, 2 March 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.