Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey

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. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect anything can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mayor of East Newark, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list of mayors of tiny East Newark, NJ (which should not be confused with its much larger neighbor) easily fails WP:NLIST as a list of non-notable people. Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and New Jersey. Rusf10 (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Merge all content but all such work must be done by nominator with one hand tied behind their back.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per (bold mine) plus fact that city size is not a Wikipedia policy-based criteria and that Wikipedia lists do not require persons, places, things on lists to be individually notable. Per cited WP:NLIST, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", such as this one which is well-organised.
    • Wikipedia:SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
    • Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
    • Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
    • Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
    • Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. There is parent article in which it can be embedded East Newark, New Jersey for a merge, but would overwhelm that article. Djflem (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      None of these are valid reasons. It simple really, the people in the list aren't independently notable nor is the topic itself discussed by multiple reliable sources. This is a town of roughly 2,500 people. The mayor of such a small town just is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia guidelines are certainly valid. Persons on list do not have to be independently notable and Wikipedia criteria guidelines specifically states a reason to create a list is because "most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". There is no guideline which makes reference to the size of a place which regard to such lists. Djflem (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are not multiple reliable sources discussing the topic, which is a requirement to justify a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per NP:list: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Djflem (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cherry-pick the guidelines. You omitted the last sentence which says "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." This list has not been shown to be notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's so funny. It would dedicate 17.5% of the artcle to a singular aspect of government history, which is disproportionate and imbalanced.Djflem (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. I'm pretty skeptical of Wikipedia editors doing original-research-by-synthesis with complicated list criteria, but a list of mayors is the kind of thing that's acceptable. Yes, it's a small town - so what? As long as valid sources exist, it's fine. While this article could be merged, it seems fine stand-alone as well. SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these type of lists, as long as they are sourced, form a valuable, if tiny, resource for researchers.Onel5969 TT me 12:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a policy-based reason, see WP:VALUABLE--Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See guideline Wikipedia:LISTPURP: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists Djflem (talk) 15:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question' First of all, what is considered valuable is very subjective. Moreover, is this a structured list? Is it organized chronologically? NO grouped by theme? NO or an annotated list? And what exactly qualifies as an annotated list? It could be argued that any list with citations is annotated.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theme (see title), chronology (see dates), structure (see form), and annotations (see notes) are obvious. Djflem (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the previous version of the article was missing dates, I see that changed. But I still contend that just because a list is organized chronologically, it does not exempt it from notability guidelines. If that was the case we could have articles like List of dog catchers of East Newark & List of Superintendents of the East Newark School District provided that they are in chronological order. And again, virtually all list with citations are annotated. WP:LISTPURP is meant to be read in conjunction with WP:NLIST, not to override it.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep per Djflem. Value judgements aren't relevant here; policy is, and policy is unambiguous. (edit: after reading cases for merges, sure, a small table should be fine, but if this gets to the point of 10+ mayors, we should make the list.) Iseult Δx parlez moi 07:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy is that? DJflem listed about 10 of them just to see what sticks.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all of them. WP:BLUDGEON Iseult Δx parlez moi 17:00, 5 June 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayor_of_East_Newark,_New_Jersey&oldid=1092128887"