| Revision as of 15:22, 23 February 2018 editAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers504,532 edits Speedy Keep← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:02, 23 February 2018 edit undoRusf10 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,121 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| *'''Delete''' Irwin aside, hyperlocal New Jersey politicians not otherwise independently notable. ] (]) 07:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Irwin aside, hyperlocal New Jersey politicians not otherwise independently notable. ] (]) 07:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' Yet another in a series of problematic nominations from an editor who fails to read articles or understand ], ] or ]. Of the four articles Rusf10 targeted for mass deletion, two are for individuals who had served in the ], including ] (listed here) and the nomination for ] for which Rusf10 . 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 -- ] and ] -- should have been considered for merge / redirect to ] 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 ], ] or ], 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."'''{{pb}}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. ] in Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages policy before any further such nominations and the disruption they cause. ] (]) 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC) | *'''Speedy Keep''' Yet another in a series of problematic nominations from an editor who fails to read articles or understand ], ] or ]. Of the four articles Rusf10 targeted for mass deletion, two are for individuals who had served in the ], including ] (listed here) and the nomination for ] for which Rusf10 . 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 -- ] and ] -- should have been considered for merge / redirect to ] 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 ], ] or ], 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."'''{{pb}}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. ] in Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages policy before any further such nominations and the disruption they cause. ] (]) 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :::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) 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 ], the very thing you try to accuse me of. So why don't you stop acting like a clown?--] (]) 16:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:02, 23 February 2018
Thomas J. Lynch Jr.
- Thomas J. Lynch Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (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)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all articles with the same notability problem and containing the same sourcing:
:Joseph C. Irwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete All I agree re: lack of notability for all three.TH1980 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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. 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 03:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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 04:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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 10:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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 04:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train 04:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train 04:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Irwin aside, hyperlocal New Jersey politicians not otherwise independently notable. SportingFlyer (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Yet another in a series of problematic nominations from an editor who fails to read articles or understand Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages policy before any further such nominations and the disruption they cause. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- 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) 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)