- 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. Sandstein 22:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Frank W. Burr
- Frank W. Burr ( | 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 mayor, fails WP:NPOL, only sources are obituary and article about a scholarship he got when he was a kid. Rusf10 ( talk) 18:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- As per WP:NEXIST, notability is not defined by sources in the article. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep See argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey. -- RAN ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Mr. Norton is totally misguided in his argument to keep this article. A reference to a young person getting a scholarship is totally not up to standards for GNG, nor is a local county paper obituary. In fact, the current level of coverage is below the level we would expect to see for routine coverage for a mayor of a place with a little under 50,000 people. This article clearly falls short of the notability standards we have established for articles on mayors. Especialy mayors of places which in reality are a small community within a large spawling urban conglomeration. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not convincing, since your !vote hasn't analyzed the alternatives to deletion, and we already know given the early discussion that a potential merge target exists. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - RAN I suggest you rethink your "rationale" because it doesn't make a whole lotta sense. Burr does not meet the terms of #1 and #2 in WP:NPOL because he never obtained international recognition or even significant press. As for #3, it emphasizes that being an elected official "does not guarantee notability". We can try to go the "passes WP:GNG" route and fair no better; the context of the sources, which are extremely important to read, are one obituary and a few passing mentions that get it no closer to notability. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. NN mayor. There is no assertion of notability in the article. There are refs but they substantiate that he lived a very humdrum life. Szzuk ( talk) 16:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong venue or keep This discussion is only about notability, which in this context with more than one merge target is not a deletion argument. A quick look at the article I see New York Times articles from 1925 and 1972, which is a reliable source. There is some merit to a merge argument, but without an editor wanting to do the work, it would be academic to discuss it. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Read those two articles. The first (1925) mentions him as one of multiple kids who received scholarships at a young age. I don't see any notability at all here. The second (1972) is about a group of mayors who oppose a state transportation bond issue. In that article he is quoted because he serves as a spokesman for the group. The bond issue ending up failing in the election later that year. Not really any notability there either.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- The proper venue to discuss non-deletion notability is the talk page of the article, as per
WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. As for the 1925 article, a quote is retained in the article. The quoted sentence contributes to the GNG metric for notability with one sentence of in-depth significant coverage. $15US in 1925 in $350US today. A future event (the bond later failing) is entirely irrelevant to the GNG metric.
Unscintillating (
talk) 19:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is the correct venue, the article should be deleted because the man doesn't have enough notability for an article. As per GNG, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail." In other words, he was not the subject of those NY Times articles. And the amount of money of the scholarship is irrelevant. In 2017, a $350 scholarship is nothing.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- If the amount of money is irrelevant, why did you go on to post your math? You want the math to prove that it is irrelevant, but you are using the claim of irrelevance to deflect criticism of your math. Your math is that 350=0. Your same math is turning significant coverage of one sentence = 0 significant coverage. And since you just got done reading GNG, look again and you will see, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And yes, this is the wrong venue, since with a suitable redirect target, your non-notability argument is not an argument for deletion. See
WP:IGNORINGATD as well as the policy
WP:ATD. A deletion argument would have to explain why we can't merge or redirect, which you've not attempted because we already know that we can do a redirect.
Unscintillating (
talk) 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating, I am curious, how many times have you claimed AFD is the "wrong venue", and the nominator or closing admin actually closed it as such?
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- You claim you are curious, but I sense that your interest is in drawing attention to yourself.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so, she actually asked a really great question that you can't answer. Perhaps you are bringing up this argument in the "wrong venue" because no admin is backing your claim.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 01:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating I would prefer a straight answer if you are at all capable of doing so. I don't know how I'm drawing attention to myself when the question is about your rationale and requires your response.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 04:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- So first you were "curious", and now my response is "required". You can't even maintain the same viewpoint from one post to the next.This discussion is about you, because it is you who is trolling, including both the posts here and on User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 10#Recent edits's talk page. Unscintillating ( talk) 16:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating I would prefer a straight answer if you are at all capable of doing so. I don't know how I'm drawing attention to myself when the question is about your rationale and requires your response.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 04:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so, she actually asked a really great question that you can't answer. Perhaps you are bringing up this argument in the "wrong venue" because no admin is backing your claim.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 01:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- You claim you are curious, but I sense that your interest is in drawing attention to yourself.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating, I am curious, how many times have you claimed AFD is the "wrong venue", and the nominator or closing admin actually closed it as such?
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- If the amount of money is irrelevant, why did you go on to post your math? You want the math to prove that it is irrelevant, but you are using the claim of irrelevance to deflect criticism of your math. Your math is that 350=0. Your same math is turning significant coverage of one sentence = 0 significant coverage. And since you just got done reading GNG, look again and you will see, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And yes, this is the wrong venue, since with a suitable redirect target, your non-notability argument is not an argument for deletion. See
WP:IGNORINGATD as well as the policy
WP:ATD. A deletion argument would have to explain why we can't merge or redirect, which you've not attempted because we already know that we can do a redirect.
Unscintillating (
talk) 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is the correct venue, the article should be deleted because the man doesn't have enough notability for an article. As per GNG, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail." In other words, he was not the subject of those NY Times articles. And the amount of money of the scholarship is irrelevant. In 2017, a $350 scholarship is nothing.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- The proper venue to discuss non-deletion notability is the talk page of the article, as per
WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. As for the 1925 article, a quote is retained in the article. The quoted sentence contributes to the GNG metric for notability with one sentence of in-depth significant coverage. $15US in 1925 in $350US today. A future event (the bond later failing) is entirely irrelevant to the GNG metric.
Unscintillating (
talk) 19:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Read those two articles. The first (1925) mentions him as one of multiple kids who received scholarships at a young age. I don't see any notability at all here. The second (1972) is about a group of mayors who oppose a state transportation bond issue. In that article he is quoted because he serves as a spokesman for the group. The bond issue ending up failing in the election later that year. Not really any notability there either.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Probably a nice guy, but not notable. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. A person does not clear GNG just his existence gets namechecked in articles that aren't about him, so the high school scholarship and the transportation bond and the Fishers Island community land trust and his grandson's wedding announcement aren't helping at all — literally the only source here that's actually about him to the degree necessary to assist GNG is the obituary. But everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere would always get obituaried in the local media after he died, so that isn't enough in and of itself — to make a mayor notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, what needs to be demonstrated is that he's significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other places, by virtue of garnering more and/or wider coverage than would merely be expected to exist for all mayors. But none of the sourcing here shows that at all. Bearcat ( talk) 16:30, 16 December 2017 (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.
- 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. Sandstein 22:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Frank W. Burr
- Frank W. Burr ( | 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 mayor, fails WP:NPOL, only sources are obituary and article about a scholarship he got when he was a kid. Rusf10 ( talk) 18:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- As per WP:NEXIST, notability is not defined by sources in the article. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep See argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey. -- RAN ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Mr. Norton is totally misguided in his argument to keep this article. A reference to a young person getting a scholarship is totally not up to standards for GNG, nor is a local county paper obituary. In fact, the current level of coverage is below the level we would expect to see for routine coverage for a mayor of a place with a little under 50,000 people. This article clearly falls short of the notability standards we have established for articles on mayors. Especialy mayors of places which in reality are a small community within a large spawling urban conglomeration. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not convincing, since your !vote hasn't analyzed the alternatives to deletion, and we already know given the early discussion that a potential merge target exists. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - RAN I suggest you rethink your "rationale" because it doesn't make a whole lotta sense. Burr does not meet the terms of #1 and #2 in WP:NPOL because he never obtained international recognition or even significant press. As for #3, it emphasizes that being an elected official "does not guarantee notability". We can try to go the "passes WP:GNG" route and fair no better; the context of the sources, which are extremely important to read, are one obituary and a few passing mentions that get it no closer to notability. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 00:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. NN mayor. There is no assertion of notability in the article. There are refs but they substantiate that he lived a very humdrum life. Szzuk ( talk) 16:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong venue or keep This discussion is only about notability, which in this context with more than one merge target is not a deletion argument. A quick look at the article I see New York Times articles from 1925 and 1972, which is a reliable source. There is some merit to a merge argument, but without an editor wanting to do the work, it would be academic to discuss it. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Read those two articles. The first (1925) mentions him as one of multiple kids who received scholarships at a young age. I don't see any notability at all here. The second (1972) is about a group of mayors who oppose a state transportation bond issue. In that article he is quoted because he serves as a spokesman for the group. The bond issue ending up failing in the election later that year. Not really any notability there either.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- The proper venue to discuss non-deletion notability is the talk page of the article, as per
WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. As for the 1925 article, a quote is retained in the article. The quoted sentence contributes to the GNG metric for notability with one sentence of in-depth significant coverage. $15US in 1925 in $350US today. A future event (the bond later failing) is entirely irrelevant to the GNG metric.
Unscintillating (
talk) 19:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is the correct venue, the article should be deleted because the man doesn't have enough notability for an article. As per GNG, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail." In other words, he was not the subject of those NY Times articles. And the amount of money of the scholarship is irrelevant. In 2017, a $350 scholarship is nothing.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- If the amount of money is irrelevant, why did you go on to post your math? You want the math to prove that it is irrelevant, but you are using the claim of irrelevance to deflect criticism of your math. Your math is that 350=0. Your same math is turning significant coverage of one sentence = 0 significant coverage. And since you just got done reading GNG, look again and you will see, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And yes, this is the wrong venue, since with a suitable redirect target, your non-notability argument is not an argument for deletion. See
WP:IGNORINGATD as well as the policy
WP:ATD. A deletion argument would have to explain why we can't merge or redirect, which you've not attempted because we already know that we can do a redirect.
Unscintillating (
talk) 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating, I am curious, how many times have you claimed AFD is the "wrong venue", and the nominator or closing admin actually closed it as such?
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- You claim you are curious, but I sense that your interest is in drawing attention to yourself.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so, she actually asked a really great question that you can't answer. Perhaps you are bringing up this argument in the "wrong venue" because no admin is backing your claim.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 01:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating I would prefer a straight answer if you are at all capable of doing so. I don't know how I'm drawing attention to myself when the question is about your rationale and requires your response.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 04:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- So first you were "curious", and now my response is "required". You can't even maintain the same viewpoint from one post to the next.This discussion is about you, because it is you who is trolling, including both the posts here and on User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 10#Recent edits's talk page. Unscintillating ( talk) 16:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating I would prefer a straight answer if you are at all capable of doing so. I don't know how I'm drawing attention to myself when the question is about your rationale and requires your response.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 04:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think so, she actually asked a really great question that you can't answer. Perhaps you are bringing up this argument in the "wrong venue" because no admin is backing your claim.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 01:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- You claim you are curious, but I sense that your interest is in drawing attention to yourself.
Unscintillating (
talk) 01:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
-
Unscintillating, I am curious, how many times have you claimed AFD is the "wrong venue", and the nominator or closing admin actually closed it as such?
TheGracefulSlick (
talk) 11:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- If the amount of money is irrelevant, why did you go on to post your math? You want the math to prove that it is irrelevant, but you are using the claim of irrelevance to deflect criticism of your math. Your math is that 350=0. Your same math is turning significant coverage of one sentence = 0 significant coverage. And since you just got done reading GNG, look again and you will see, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And yes, this is the wrong venue, since with a suitable redirect target, your non-notability argument is not an argument for deletion. See
WP:IGNORINGATD as well as the policy
WP:ATD. A deletion argument would have to explain why we can't merge or redirect, which you've not attempted because we already know that we can do a redirect.
Unscintillating (
talk) 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- This is the correct venue, the article should be deleted because the man doesn't have enough notability for an article. As per GNG, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") that does not discuss the subject in detail." In other words, he was not the subject of those NY Times articles. And the amount of money of the scholarship is irrelevant. In 2017, a $350 scholarship is nothing.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- The proper venue to discuss non-deletion notability is the talk page of the article, as per
WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. As for the 1925 article, a quote is retained in the article. The quoted sentence contributes to the GNG metric for notability with one sentence of in-depth significant coverage. $15US in 1925 in $350US today. A future event (the bond later failing) is entirely irrelevant to the GNG metric.
Unscintillating (
talk) 19:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Read those two articles. The first (1925) mentions him as one of multiple kids who received scholarships at a young age. I don't see any notability at all here. The second (1972) is about a group of mayors who oppose a state transportation bond issue. In that article he is quoted because he serves as a spokesman for the group. The bond issue ending up failing in the election later that year. Not really any notability there either.--
Rusf10 (
talk) 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Probably a nice guy, but not notable. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. A person does not clear GNG just his existence gets namechecked in articles that aren't about him, so the high school scholarship and the transportation bond and the Fishers Island community land trust and his grandson's wedding announcement aren't helping at all — literally the only source here that's actually about him to the degree necessary to assist GNG is the obituary. But everybody who was ever mayor of anywhere would always get obituaried in the local media after he died, so that isn't enough in and of itself — to make a mayor notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, what needs to be demonstrated is that he's significantly more notable than most other mayors of most other places, by virtue of garnering more and/or wider coverage than would merely be expected to exist for all mayors. But none of the sourcing here shows that at all. Bearcat ( talk) 16:30, 16 December 2017 (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.