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 15:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

John C. Tkazyik (  | 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, was previously nominated for deletion in 2009 and was kept. The keep arguments then were that he received press coverage. Both then and now the only significant press coverage is the Poughkeepsie Journal. It's the local newspaper, of course they're going to cover him. Rusf10 ( talk) 05:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 08:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 08:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Baby miss fortune} 08:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep  Reading the previous AfD yields, "...has received voluminous local coverage, mainly the Poughkeepsie Journal[,] and other local newspapers and news organizations that are not in the Google News orbit."  Including the current nomination, everyone except the previous nominator agrees that this topic is well sourced.  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The arguements in the last discussion were either 1.as mayor of Poughkeepsie he is automatically notable (as a city of 30,00 people I definitely don't think this is the case) or 2. He passes WP:POLITICIAN as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" based on the fact multiple articles have been written in the Poughkeepsie Journal (which does appear in Google News, btw). How can the Poughkeepsie Journal not cover the mayor of Poughkeepsie? Can you find an article about him in another non-local source? Again, the issue here is notability, not verifiability-- Rusf10 ( talk) 04:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't think it was the intent of the previous author to say that the Poughkeepsie Journal was not listed in Google News, so I have inserted an editorial comma to the quote in my comment.  I think that statement is saying that in addition to the Poughkeepsie Journal, there are "local newspapers and news organizations that are not in the Google News orbit" that cover the topic as reliable sources.  Unscintillating ( talk) 15:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete Local newspapers always cover the mayors of local municipalities, we need more to show notability, and we have absolutely nothing more. This is not the 1950s when the city he would later be mayor of had over 40,000 people. He really is a defeated politician for state office and that is not at all a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom: fails NPOL, "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office." >SerialNumber 54129 ^{...speculates} 16:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local coverage doesn't cut it. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 19:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• But you agree that he has "voluminous" coverage that satisfies WP:GNG?  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Where does the word "voluminous" appear in GNG?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 21:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The words in GNG are "significant coverage".  The nutshell states the need for "sufficiently significant attention".  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - We know local politicians need something exceptional to be considered notable; nearby news reporting is typical of any person of Tkazyik'a status. "Voluminous" seems to be a popular word here so I apologize for not fitting it into my rationale. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 05:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• And is the first AfD valid in saying that the coverage is voluminous?  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• If WP:Notability (events) is relevant, this !vote hasn't shown why.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Unscintillating unfortunately you are basing much of your rebuttals to an eight year old AFD and the word "voluminous". Interpretations of policy can/have grown after eight years and the use of the word "voluminous" doesn't override every vote you disagree with. Also remember: don't comment in excess, it is bad for your health! TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and lacks significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. Local coverage is routine for local politicians and does not rise to the level that would be required for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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.