Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:51, 27 February 2018 editRusf10 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,121 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:09, 27 February 2018 edit undoDjflem (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers104,662 edits Misplaced Pages:WDAFD Next edit →
Line 37:		Line 37:
	::::::::You DO NOT know what I'd do, so don't make an ASSumption. Refrain. The ] is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected, despite to cover your tracks ] (]) 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)		::::::::You DO NOT know what I'd do, so don't make an ASSumption. Refrain. The ] is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected, despite to cover your tracks ] (]) 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
	:::::::::Easy there! Calling me an ass does not further your point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bundling or that edit. The article was added to the nomination shortly after the nomination was made which is clearly how its supposed to be done as per ]. Just because you do not like the multiAFD process does not mean I cannot use it.--] (]) 22:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)		:::::::::Easy there! Calling me an ass does not further your point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bundling or that edit. The article was added to the nomination shortly after the nomination was made which is clearly how its supposed to be done as per ]. Just because you do not like the multiAFD process does not mean I cannot use it.--] (]) 22:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
			:::::::You DO NOT know what do not like. Refrain from such statements. ] is the correct procedure.] (]) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
	::::::*I am going to repeat myself and point out that it is ''perfectly acceptable to vote keep for just one of the article in a bundle''. ] (]) 21:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)		::::::*I am going to repeat myself and point out that it is ''perfectly acceptable to vote keep for just one of the article in a bundle''. ] (]) 21:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:09, 27 February 2018

Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico

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

Yet another county freeholder article with no source except her official biography . And yes, the article was mostly copied and pasted from there. Otherwise fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages of other Hudson County Freeholders for lack of notability and poor sourcing. Some, but not all of these articles also appear to be copied and pasted from the county website:

Delete as per nominator; there are a large number of articles about non-notable New Jersey politicians on here at the moment. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, it happens elsewhere too (last year I nominated a large cluster of minimally sourced or unsourced small-town mayors from Quebec) — New Jersey's not unique in that regard, it just happens to be where somebody's actively undertaking a cleanup effort at the moment. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure - I'm just tired of writing the same delete statement over and over again! SportingFlyer (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train 04:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train 04:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(edited) Delete all. DeGise as county executive has minimal national news coverage, is more relevant that the others, so I was inclined to keep. The rest are strictly local politicians of local interest only with local sources only. However I was mistaken in my initial thoughts, and even DeGise seems to be a non-notable local politician. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Prince of Thieves and Enos733:- Thomas A. DeGise was never mayor of Jersey City, he ran for mayor and lost. A county executive really isn't any more notable than a freeholder, so I do think it is appropriate to bundle these.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please explain with facts not opinions why a County executive should be bundled with freeholders, which are not the same.Djflem (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

My bad, I thought it said he was a mayor. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

My position is that DeGise is not similarly situated and should be included in a separate AfD, where the merits of his notability can be discussed individually. While DeGise may not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, he is not just a "Hudson County Freeholder." --Enos733 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Withdraw Thomas A. DeGise. Mass nominations should only contain similarly-situated subjects. --Enos733 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete all. Refactoring comment as I misunderstood: DeGise was never the mayor of Jersey City, he just ran and lost. But being county executive is not an automatic notability boost, over and above anybody else on the freeholder board, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, and neither is having been a city councillor in Jersey City — but the sourcing for him isn't notably better than it is for any of the others (it's actually weaker than some of them.) The only evidence I see of "nationalized" coverage here is a single article from The New York Times — but that article isn't about DeGise, but rather merely namechecks his existence in coverage about the guy DeGise lost to in the mayoral race. And in the context of Jersey City, it represents local coverage within the NYT's local coverage area — but when a person's notability claim falls under one of those subject areas where we require nationalized rather than purely local coverage, such as city councillors and county executives, then they do not get a free notability boost just because they happen live in the NYC Metro and so their local coverage happens to be in The New York Times instead of The Palookaville Herald. It still represents local coverage, not wider coverage that inherently makes them more notable than other people who hold the same job, and get the same amount of local coverage, further away from New York City. And none of the others have any strong or well-sourced claim of notability at all either. To get over WP:NPOL, an officeholder at the county level of office has to show the substance and sourcing to support a credible claim that they're more notable than most other people at the same level — and that still holds true regardless of whether they were just a regular freeholder or an executive. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Withdraw Thomas A. DeGise. Mass nominations should only contain similarly-situated subjects.Djflem (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment County executive and freeholder are not the same.Djflem (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment if Degise is withdrawn, I'll AfD the article individually, as it does not appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a waste of time to create a new AfD just for the County executive, if anyone wants to !vote keep for that one article that is fine, it can still be kept even as part of a group AfD. (as can any of the articles nominated here). Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:BUNDLE is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected.Djflem (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This procedural wikilawyering has to stop. You'd oppose all the deletions regardless of if they were done separately, so its really a moot point. County freeholder and county executive are two closely related positions and the sourcing in the DeGise article is not significantly different than the others.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You DO NOT know what I'd do, so don't make an ASSumption. Refrain. The Misplaced Pages:BUNDLE is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected, despite this edit to cover your tracks Djflem (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Easy there! Calling me an ass does not further your point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bundling or that edit. The article was added to the nomination shortly after the nomination was made which is clearly how its supposed to be done as per WP:MULTIAFD. Just because you do not like the multiAFD process does not mean I cannot use it.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You DO NOT know what do not like. Refrain from such statements. Misplaced Pages:WDAFD is the correct procedure.Djflem (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I am going to repeat myself and point out that it is perfectly acceptable to vote keep for just one of the article in a bundle. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Categories: