Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bergen County Executive

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 keep. J04n(talk page) 18:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen County Executive

Bergen County Executive (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)

Unnecessary WP:SPINOUT article. The history section is already adequately covered in Bergen County. The remainder of the article is about election results and mini-biographies of non-notable people including those who were recently deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James J. Tedesco III Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see a valid deletion reason. --RAN (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic itself is notable, but this is a continuation of a conflict involving New Jersey politics: this page, while notable, was created to get around WP:BLP for several recently deleted articles, including the one the nominator mentions. The politicians really should be in tabular/list form, similar to other county executive pages, for instance: King County Executive. SportingFlyer talk 03:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At above mentioned article: A picture is worth a thousand words Djflem (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific part of WP:BLP are you using to support your claim/contention?Djflem (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear WP:BLP1E for most of these officials, and not only that, they're not notable enough for their own page, so why should we be including everything that was on their old page on this new page? Also see the first sentence of WP:AVOIDVICTIM. SportingFlyer talk 14:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Well sourced piece Wikipedia:Verifiability about a major political position consistent within Wikipeida. Weak Nomination rationale: persons in article were/are Bergen County executives.Djflem (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets GNG. Individuals interested in the position of Bergen County executive are more likely to find information if it's in a page of its own rather than small section in a page about a county. Perhaps Tedesco needs to be shortened because it's too much irrelevant info in a topic about an elected position, but the others don't break BLP since they are standalone pages themselves. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. It looks like at least two of those politicians would be good candidates for AfD (McDowell, McNerney). The other two served in the state assembly. SportingFlyer talk 14:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Must be something terribly broken at Wikipedia:NPOL if:

a person representing the 36th Legislative District which as of November 30, 2017^[update] had 121,360 registered voters from a population of 219,354 (+/-) does gain automatic inclusion

BUT

a person representing all of Bergen County, where on Election Day 2017 there were 593,454 registered voters^[1] from a population of 939,151 (+/-)^[2] in a notably "more powerful" public office doesn't.

Wouldn't you agree?Djflem (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like it, take it to a policy forum. For the record, I completely disagree with your logic. WP:NPOL has nothing to do with how many people a politician represents. SportingFlyer talk 03:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To understand, it's not my logic, but that of GNG/NPOL being applied: A member of a state legislature gets an automatic pass (even w/o sufficient coverage) but a high-level county official with extensive coverage doesn't. Is that correct? What is the logic behind that?Djflem (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on a prior consensus. The logic is that state legislatures are well covered by reliable sources so the required sources for WP:GNG can be presumed to be there. This is not based on population, since population administered does not equal greater coverage (or at least not the presumption of greater coverage). Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The question is whether the logic of prior consensus is sound, let alone valid. And yes, all state legislatures can be presumed to to have the required sources for WP:GNG. Why does that presumption extend to individual state legislators? (who in many cases do not have extnsive coverage)? Why doesn't constituent population matter? Why wouldn't the size of the district, and whether the role was in a execuive, legislative, or judicial function, be considered a viable measure of the relative weight with regard to politicians' notability?Djflem (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is simply an assumption that the subject passes WP:GNG, not a free pass. This policy just means you have to make more effort with the local politicians. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like a free pass if it's an assumption.Djflem (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it seems that way, but that's only because it is hard to check every possible place for sources, and show you have done so. It's much easier to nominate for deletion when the onus is to prove the sources are there. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you're trying to argue is that the guidelines should be changed, this is not the place for that. Perhaps the answer is all state legislators should not be considered notable, but that also would require a change to the guidelines. Unless the guidelines are changed, your argument about population is irrelevant.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, REFRAIN from statements like "what you're trying argue", this is not the place for that (nor is anywhere else on Wikipedia). My statement is relevant to the above discussion about consensus/guidelines into which you inserted yourself.Djflem (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I started this discussion by nominating the article for deletion, so I don't understand the "inserted yourself" comment. Second, you can refrain from telling me how to word my comments. And yes, your are clearly questioning the current guidelines. Just because it is your opinion that they are not logical, doesn't change the fact that they exist. If you don't like them, fine, propose a change, but here is not the place to do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)Djflem (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC) An attempt to censor another editor by saying that a matter of relevance in this AfD discussion may not be brought up or that "here is not the place to do so" is an attempt at the suppression of ideas, information & inquiry. It not only contrary to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, it is anathema to those trying to create an encyclopedia. No one is required to participate in discussion on a topic pertinent to clarify Wikipedia:Consensus and should not if they don't like it/feel it's the inappropriate forum. Nor should they interject with personal opinions as to what other editors should or should not do. Again, statements which addressed "you" followed by assumptions or unsolicited advice are unwelcome and rude, so please refrain.Djflem (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards for politicians are not based on the number of people that happen to reside in the person's ward or district, but on the level of government at which they serve. A state legislator is not relevant only to the people in his or her own district, because that person has power to vote on legislation that affects the entire state — so he or she is a topic of statewide and often even nationwide interest beyond just his or her own district itself. But a city or county councillor is not typically of wider interest anywhere beyond his or her own county, which is why city or county councillors have to clear higher and tougher standards of notability and sourceability than state or federal legislators do. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the argument fails to consider is that there are executive and legislative branches of government. At the county level, a county executive, being the highest elected-at-large official is in a position to exert more influence through appointments, approvals/vetoes and fiscal allocations. It also fails to acknowledge that there are several states with a population less than that of Bergen and numerous other US counties. (When the first executive was elected in 1978, The New York Times stated that that the position of Essex County Executive was "considered by many to be second in power only to that of the Governor.") Current consensus is unsound and gives disproportionate undue weight (a freebie which I support) to a member of a state legislative body over a county official without consideration to the power of political office and the population of the constituency.Djflem (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kudos to Djflem for creating an article with nearly 50 reliable and verifiable sources about the position that is the highest elected office -- directly chosen by the voters -- in a county with 939,000 residents, the largest county in the state of New Jersey and among the 50+ largest of the 3,100+ counties in the United States. The article meets and exceeds the notability standard and is entirely consistent with community consensus for Keep reached ten days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey that the notability standard is met and reviewed and affirmed two days ago at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 6 where the close stated that "Overwhelming consensus here that the AfD close was correct." Sure, consensus can change, but this article surpasses its Atlantic County equivalent as a model and there is no evidence that anything has changed since the previous close. WP:BLP has been brought up as an argument for deletion without any explanation of how any of the criteria for BLP deletion are met. WP:BLP1E would be relevant if the county executive fell down a well and that was the entire subject of the article, but that seems even more tenuous as an argument for deletion. The article stands on its own separate and apart from the article for Bergen County, New Jersey with greater detail about the county executive, but if the argument for deletion is based on WP:SPINOUT, the appropriate solution would be a merge not deletion, as described by WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. The position is notable and the reliable and verifiable sources about the position, its history and the people who have filled the position meet and far exceed WP:GNG. Alansohn (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the position seems to meet WP:GNG well enough. It's not a major political position, but I feel Wikipedia can cope with articles like this in general. Prince of Thieves (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC) The way it;s written makes it is a placeholder for 4 or 5 non-notable politicians to still have biographies here, it's kind of a composite stub. This is just so off style-wise that I can't support it. I fixed the issue, but was reverted and told I was agreeing to the biographical information being included in excessive detail by !voting keep here. Please consider that now retracted. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW Keep, well-written, well-sourced article about a significant political position.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I can see that notability standards are going to go by the wayside here, but I have to go for deletion. Regardless of how populous the county is, the coverage of these figures is strictly local— and yes, the NYT is a local paper as far as this is concerned, and the coverage seems to be pretty much routine stuff that I would expect any local paper to report about county politicians. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean notability standards are going to go by the wayside here. The article is about a political office, the chief executive of a large county. It consistent with community consensus, as seen in many of the articles found at Category:County executives in the United StatesDjflem (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Verty strange nom. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but prune. It's not an inherently invalid topic to have an article about — we frequently do have articles about city or county councils when they can be properly sourced as a topic. What's inappropriate here is not the concept of there being an article about the council at all, but the misuse of it as a compilation of mini-BLPs of all the incumbent councillors as a dodge of their failure to survive AFD discussions as standalone topics. The content of the list still has to meet the same standards as any other article: if a person does not qualify to have a full standalone BLP, then pasting all of the same content into the council article in lieu of a standalone article is not an acceptable alternative. The article can include a list of the councillors' names; it cannot include extended biographical sketches of anybody who doesn't qualify to have a full biographical article of their own. That content needs to be pruned, but a basic overview article about the council as an entity is not an unreasonable thing for us to have. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to that rule so I can read more about it. --RAN (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

t would be very useful to read elsewhere about the claims being made to back up the validity of the opinion (which includes assumption, accusation, and insinuation) being expressed.Djflem (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer There is discussion on the article talk page directly relevant to elements of this discussion. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Position is notable; form of the article is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 10:33, 21 March 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.