- 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. North America 1000 00:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
John Renna
- John Renna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also, poorly sourced since most of the sources seem to contain only passing mentions of the subject. Rusf10 ( talk) 16:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, the referencing looks fine to me, plenty more available. -- RAN ( talk) 02:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete routine coverage is all we have. Being one of multiple members of a state comission as he was is not a sign of notability, nor is being head of a political party at the US county level. Maybe in a country which is one party and the party runs the government, but not in the US system, where party officials mainly reflect the created goals of the elected officials and the electorate. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- WP:Routine reads: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." I know you are going to say that the "etc." covers all the references used in the article but an equally absurd argument would be that etc means any reference concerning presidents of the USA or popes, and we have to delete articles about presidents and popes. --
RAN (
talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
-
RAN, Isn't that a bit of an extreme interpretation of what
John Pack Lambert was trying to mean. You have to admit that
Paid Notice: Deaths RENNA, GRACE B. could easily fall under
WP:ROUTINE, right? Also, I appreciate your contributions to the article as it gets discussed because it sheds a more favorable light on it. Thank you for your edits. ―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖ 19:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- The argument is called the strawman fallacy, that item was added long after the AFD started. Even if there from the beginning, no claim was made that this reference was used to promote notability, it is there to verify a fact. -- RAN ( talk) 23:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
-
RAN, Isn't that a bit of an extreme interpretation of what
John Pack Lambert was trying to mean. You have to admit that
Paid Notice: Deaths RENNA, GRACE B. could easily fall under
WP:ROUTINE, right? Also, I appreciate your contributions to the article as it gets discussed because it sheds a more favorable light on it. Thank you for your edits. ―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖ 19:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- WP:Routine reads: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." I know you are going to say that the "etc." covers all the references used in the article but an equally absurd argument would be that etc means any reference concerning presidents of the USA or popes, and we have to delete articles about presidents and popes. --
RAN (
talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The first bullet at WP:POLOUTCOMES says that cabinet-level appointed political figures of states are generally regarded as notable. Unscintillating ( talk) 23:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The official results of a primary election I guess are more a primary source than routine, but either way they are not an example of the type of substantial coverage needed to establish notability. Such is entirely lacking here. The reports are at best on elections, not individuals. We have none of the needed substantial coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The reliable and verifiable sourcing about him surpasses the notability standard, in addition to his state cabinet role meeting the WP:POLOUTCOMES standard. Alansohn ( talk) 02:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Article has had major improvements. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Reliable sourcing satisfies GNG. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: No way would an already dead provincial-level politician, who has never gone to the national level of politics, ever reach any level of GNG. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- The Province of New Jersey hasn't been around since the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. FYI, Unscintillating ( talk) 07:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- You know what I meant by "provincial level". No need to pick over words. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 19:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- No articles on governors or state senators? They have not "gone to the national level of politics". -- RAN ( talk) 19:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- At least not for leaders of tinpot kingdoms. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:20, 2 January 2018 (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 no consensus. North America 1000 00:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
John Renna
- John Renna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also, poorly sourced since most of the sources seem to contain only passing mentions of the subject. Rusf10 ( talk) 16:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, the referencing looks fine to me, plenty more available. -- RAN ( talk) 02:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete routine coverage is all we have. Being one of multiple members of a state comission as he was is not a sign of notability, nor is being head of a political party at the US county level. Maybe in a country which is one party and the party runs the government, but not in the US system, where party officials mainly reflect the created goals of the elected officials and the electorate. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- WP:Routine reads: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." I know you are going to say that the "etc." covers all the references used in the article but an equally absurd argument would be that etc means any reference concerning presidents of the USA or popes, and we have to delete articles about presidents and popes. --
RAN (
talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
-
RAN, Isn't that a bit of an extreme interpretation of what
John Pack Lambert was trying to mean. You have to admit that
Paid Notice: Deaths RENNA, GRACE B. could easily fall under
WP:ROUTINE, right? Also, I appreciate your contributions to the article as it gets discussed because it sheds a more favorable light on it. Thank you for your edits. ―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖ 19:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- The argument is called the strawman fallacy, that item was added long after the AFD started. Even if there from the beginning, no claim was made that this reference was used to promote notability, it is there to verify a fact. -- RAN ( talk) 23:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
-
RAN, Isn't that a bit of an extreme interpretation of what
John Pack Lambert was trying to mean. You have to admit that
Paid Notice: Deaths RENNA, GRACE B. could easily fall under
WP:ROUTINE, right? Also, I appreciate your contributions to the article as it gets discussed because it sheds a more favorable light on it. Thank you for your edits. ―
Matthew J. Long
-Talk-
☖ 19:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- WP:Routine reads: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." I know you are going to say that the "etc." covers all the references used in the article but an equally absurd argument would be that etc means any reference concerning presidents of the USA or popes, and we have to delete articles about presidents and popes. --
RAN (
talk) 16:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The first bullet at WP:POLOUTCOMES says that cabinet-level appointed political figures of states are generally regarded as notable. Unscintillating ( talk) 23:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The official results of a primary election I guess are more a primary source than routine, but either way they are not an example of the type of substantial coverage needed to establish notability. Such is entirely lacking here. The reports are at best on elections, not individuals. We have none of the needed substantial coverage. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The reliable and verifiable sourcing about him surpasses the notability standard, in addition to his state cabinet role meeting the WP:POLOUTCOMES standard. Alansohn ( talk) 02:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Article has had major improvements. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Reliable sourcing satisfies GNG. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete: No way would an already dead provincial-level politician, who has never gone to the national level of politics, ever reach any level of GNG. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- The Province of New Jersey hasn't been around since the time of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. FYI, Unscintillating ( talk) 07:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- You know what I meant by "provincial level". No need to pick over words. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 19:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- No articles on governors or state senators? They have not "gone to the national level of politics". -- RAN ( talk) 19:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- At least not for leaders of tinpot kingdoms. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 21:20, 2 January 2018 (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.