Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander J. Clements

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander J. Clements

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable person whose political run fails WP:POLITICIAN MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While he fails WP:Politician, he does "Meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.'" There are several stories in the New York Times about him. --Holdek (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Holdek -- Clements is not a notable politician but there are multiple independent sources about him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was a major defendant in a major scandal in American history. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Would that be a case of WP:ONEEVENT? The event might be important, but I'm not sure if he is notable enough himself that allows his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrLinkinPark333 (talk • contribs)
  It's a reasonable question, but I think the existence of an NYT obit, albeit a fairly short one (four paragraphs), that covers other aspects of his life than the single event just about makes him notable enough for an article. Based on the sources we have now, if there were a separate article on the scandal I think his article could be merged with it, but as it stands I think the article is best left to grow until that happens. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (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.