- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Anibal Ramos Jr. ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
City councilman, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sourced only to local newspaper and press releases. Rusf10 ( talk) 21:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages of other Newark city councilpersons:
- John Sharpe James ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gayle Chaneyfield-Jenkins ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Joseph McCallum ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment- Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newark Municipal council members as that article was created in direct response to this Afd.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 00:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 05:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: These are all council members of the biggest city in New Jersey. The Star-Ledger is quite a notable paper. Just a quick check shows additional sources from the NYT and The Washington Post.--
Meanderingbartender (
talk) 05:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- The Newark Star Ledger's of the Newark city council is routine coverage. The Washington Times (not Post) "article" in question is actually an opinion piece that was printed by (not written for) the Times. You can read it here
- Delete - Can make a table to summarize party affiliation, start-end term, and 1-2 sentences for background for each member at Municipal Council of Newark. Otherwise it is too much information for local politicians. Acnetj ( talk) 09:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting an ALTERNATIVE TO DELETION?
- Keep -- Clearly passes WP:GNG. See 21st Century Urban Race Politics, not to mention sources already in the article. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 12:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Comment -- Nom should unbundle these. They're really different from one another and there's no plausible way to discuss them as a group. These articles have exactly NONE of the properties listed in WP:BUNDLE which make bundled AfD noms appropriate. Thus I'm calling for a technical close and, if necessary, five separate AfDs to be created. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 14:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- On what grounds are four members of the same municipal council, none remarkably better-sourced than any other, "different" enough from each other to require unbundling? Are you maybe just copying an argument you saw attempted (but not successfully, I must point out) in another recent NJ-related bundle of politicians?
Bearcat (
talk) 17:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- OMG, you're accusing me of copying an argument? On what grounds? Please comment on the contribution, not on the contributor. The grounds are that not one single one of the criteria for bundling is met here.
WP:BUNDLE states "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately." Are you asserting that it is unimaginable that one City Councillor might be notable while the others are not? If it's imaginable then it's inappropriate to bundle.
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Calm your jumpies, it was just a question, not an "accusation" (as if that were an accusable crime in the first place) or an ad hominem attack. And at any rate, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of bundling is not determined by whether or not it's "imaginable" that one person in the bundle might be more notable than the rest — it's determined by whether or not one person in the bundle is already explicitly demonstrated as unequivocally being more notable than the rest. But nobody here is.
Bearcat (
talk) 05:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Where can one find the claim/interpretation you are making other than by you on this page? It would be good to read about it somewhere else on Wikipedia: Please provide links to page that back up what you are saying, thank you. Where is this wordy policy about bundles: determined whether or not one person in the bundle is already explicitly demonstrated as unequivocally being more notable than the rest. that is so confidently presented, certainly not in
Wikipedia:BUNDLE, the guiding factor for making bundled nominations.
Djflem (
talk) 19:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not just a system of following the literal letter of written rules; it is also necessary to be familiar with the established consensus around how the rules are actually interpreted in actual practice when there's debate or disagreement about them. If all that was required to make a bundled nomination invalid was that it was imaginable that one of the bundled topics might have a stronger notability basis than the others, then by definition literally nothing would ever be bundlable at all, because that exact claim that a notability differential was imaginable could always be applied to any bundle of any two or more topics. So I'm correct about how BUNDLE actually applies at an AFD: not just "a notability difference between these topics might be imaginable in theory", but "a notability difference between these topics has actually been demonstrated in fact". Bundling
Donald Trump here, in the hopes that people just voted "delete all" without actually noticing that Trump was in the batch, would be an inappropriate bundle — but a group of colleagues on the city council of the same city, where none has demonstrated any evidence of having a stronger pass of NPOL #2 than any of the others, is not.
Bearcat (
talk)
- Wikipedia is not just a system of making up random stuff because it's easier for you. You're not correct about bundling, and if you think you are, why don't you start an RfC to change
WP:BUNDLE instead of attempting a sub rosa change in its meaning via some obscure AfD? According to your theory you could bundle any finite set of human beings for deletion on the basis that all humans are similar to some extent and then all of a sudden it's everyone else's responsibility to argue that they have distinct levels of notability. Obviously that's not right so neither is your theory. Why don't you just unbundle them since there's significant desire that you do so?
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 19:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm correct about how BUNDLE works, and bundling a bunch of random humans together just because they're all humans, without regard to whether they had different bases for inclusion or not, would fit precisely into what I explicitly said about where bundling is not appropriate. Bearcat ( talk) 18:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not just a system of making up random stuff because it's easier for you. You're not correct about bundling, and if you think you are, why don't you start an RfC to change
WP:BUNDLE instead of attempting a sub rosa change in its meaning via some obscure AfD? According to your theory you could bundle any finite set of human beings for deletion on the basis that all humans are similar to some extent and then all of a sudden it's everyone else's responsibility to argue that they have distinct levels of notability. Obviously that's not right so neither is your theory. Why don't you just unbundle them since there's significant desire that you do so?
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 19:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not just a system of following the literal letter of written rules; it is also necessary to be familiar with the established consensus around how the rules are actually interpreted in actual practice when there's debate or disagreement about them. If all that was required to make a bundled nomination invalid was that it was imaginable that one of the bundled topics might have a stronger notability basis than the others, then by definition literally nothing would ever be bundlable at all, because that exact claim that a notability differential was imaginable could always be applied to any bundle of any two or more topics. So I'm correct about how BUNDLE actually applies at an AFD: not just "a notability difference between these topics might be imaginable in theory", but "a notability difference between these topics has actually been demonstrated in fact". Bundling
Donald Trump here, in the hopes that people just voted "delete all" without actually noticing that Trump was in the batch, would be an inappropriate bundle — but a group of colleagues on the city council of the same city, where none has demonstrated any evidence of having a stronger pass of NPOL #2 than any of the others, is not.
Bearcat (
talk)
- Where can one find the claim/interpretation you are making other than by you on this page? It would be good to read about it somewhere else on Wikipedia: Please provide links to page that back up what you are saying, thank you. Where is this wordy policy about bundles: determined whether or not one person in the bundle is already explicitly demonstrated as unequivocally being more notable than the rest. that is so confidently presented, certainly not in
Wikipedia:BUNDLE, the guiding factor for making bundled nominations.
Djflem (
talk) 19:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Calm your jumpies, it was just a question, not an "accusation" (as if that were an accusable crime in the first place) or an ad hominem attack. And at any rate, the appropriateness or inappropriateness of bundling is not determined by whether or not it's "imaginable" that one person in the bundle might be more notable than the rest — it's determined by whether or not one person in the bundle is already explicitly demonstrated as unequivocally being more notable than the rest. But nobody here is.
Bearcat (
talk) 05:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- OMG, you're accusing me of copying an argument? On what grounds? Please comment on the contribution, not on the contributor. The grounds are that not one single one of the criteria for bundling is met here.
WP:BUNDLE states "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately." Are you asserting that it is unimaginable that one City Councillor might be notable while the others are not? If it's imaginable then it's inappropriate to bundle.
192.160.216.52 (
talk) 18:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- On what grounds are four members of the same municipal council, none remarkably better-sourced than any other, "different" enough from each other to require unbundling? Are you maybe just copying an argument you saw attempted (but not successfully, I must point out) in another recent NJ-related bundle of politicians?
Bearcat (
talk) 17:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete all. The standard for inclusion of city councillors is not that the city is the largest in its own state, or whether its own local newspaper is a notable one or not — most cities' local newspapers are notable for our purposes, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. To get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as a city councillor, the person has to serve on the city council of an internationally famous metropolitan global city, such as New York City or Los Angeles or Toronto or London. Outside of that range (even in those cities' own external suburbs), a city councillor qualifies for an article only if they can be sourced to a depth and volume and geographic range of coverage that marks them out as plainly more notable than most other city councillors in most other cities. Every city councillor anywhere could always show as much local coverage as any of these contains, because local coverage of municipal politics is quite routinely expected to exist everywhere. To be kept, the standard all of these people would have to clear is not that they exist, or that they can be sourced to some local coverage — they would have to be shown as significantly more notable than most other people at this level of political office, and none of these are. Bearcat ( talk) 16:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- delete all This is typical local election coverage, and I'm afraid I must remind everyone, once again, that the New York Times is a local paper in this case and in others on events and places in northern NJ: they even have a local Newark news section on their website. Mangoe ( talk) 16:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Unbundle No basis for doing so. Djflem ( talk) 20:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete all a bunch of local politicians part of the ongoing absurdity of creating articles on almost everyone ever elected as anything within the boundaries of New Jersey. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete all I do suggest that if
WP:BUNDLE is used, the find sources markup should be used for each nominee, for ease of research.
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete all - routine coverage. PhilKnight ( talk) 20:48, 4 April 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.