Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico

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! 06:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico

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

Yet another county freeholder article with no source except her official biography [1]. And yes, the article was mostly copied and pasted from there. Otherwise fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages of other Hudson County Freeholders for lack of notability and poor sourcing. Some, but not all of these articles also appear to be copied and pasted from the county website:

(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)

(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)

(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)- he's the county executive. Other than a NY Time's article about him losing in the Jersey City mayoral race, not much coverage of him either.

Delete as per nominator; there are a large number of articles about non-notable New Jersey politicians on here at the moment. SportingFlyer (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it happens elsewhere too (last year I nominated a large cluster of minimally sourced or unsourced small-town mayors from Quebec) — New Jersey's not unique in that regard, it just happens to be where somebody's actively undertaking a cleanup effort at the moment. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure - I'm just tired of writing the same delete statement over and over again! SportingFlyer (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer: As you'll see below, I support the deletion of all articles, including DeGise. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edited) Delete all. DeGise as county executive has minimal national news coverage, is more relevant that the others, so I was inclined to keep. The rest are strictly local politicians of local interest only with local sources only. However I was mistaken in my initial thoughts, and even DeGise seems to be a non-notable local politician. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince of Thieves and Enos733:- Thomas A. DeGise was never mayor of Jersey City, he ran for mayor and lost. A county executive really isn't any more notable than a freeholder, so I do think it is appropriate to bundle these.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain with facts not opinions why a County executive should be bundled with freeholders, which are not the same.Djflem (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I thought it said he was a mayor. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that DeGise is not similarly situated and should be included in a separate AfD, where the merits of his notability can be discussed individually. While DeGise may not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG, he is not just a "Hudson County Freeholder." --Enos733 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Thomas A. DeGise. Mass nominations should only contain similarly-situated subjects. --Enos733 (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Refactoring comment as I misunderstood: DeGise was never the mayor of Jersey City, he just ran and lost. But being county executive is not an automatic notability boost, over and above anybody else on the freeholder board, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, and neither is having been a city councillor in Jersey City — but the sourcing for him isn't notably better than it is for any of the others (it's actually weaker than some of them.) The only evidence I see of "nationalized" coverage here is a single article from The New York Times — but that article isn't about DeGise, but rather merely namechecks his existence in coverage about the guy DeGise lost to in the mayoral race. And in the context of Jersey City, it represents local coverage within the NYT's local coverage area — but when a person's notability claim falls under one of those subject areas where we require nationalized rather than purely local coverage, such as city councillors and county executives, then they do not get a free notability boost just because they happen live in the NYC Metro and so their local coverage happens to be in The New York Times instead of The Palookaville Herald. It still represents local coverage, not wider coverage that inherently makes them more notable than other people who hold the same job, and get the same amount of local coverage, further away from New York City. And none of the others have any strong or well-sourced claim of notability at all either. To get over WP:NPOL, an officeholder at the county level of office has to show the substance and sourcing to support a credible claim that they're more notable than most other people at the same level — and that still holds true regardless of whether they were just a regular freeholder or an executive. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Thomas A. DeGise. Mass nominations should only contain similarly-situated subjects.Djflem (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment County executive and freeholder are not the same.Djflem (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if Degise is withdrawn, I'll AfD the article individually, as it does not appear to pass WP:POLITICIAN. SportingFlyer (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a waste of time to create a new AfD just for the County executive, if anyone wants to !vote keep for that one article that is fine, it can still be kept even as part of a group AfD. (as can any of the articles nominated here). Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:BUNDLE is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected.Djflem (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This procedural wikilawyering has to stop. You'd oppose all the deletions regardless of if they were done separately, so its really a moot point. County freeholder and county executive are two closely related positions and the sourcing in the DeGise article is not significantly different than the others.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to repeat myself and point out that it is perfectly acceptable to vote keep for just one of the article in a bundle. Prince of Thieves (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You DO NOT know what I'd do, so don't make an ASSumption. Refrain. The Wikipedia:BUNDLE is a sloppy nomination and should be corrected, despite this edit to cover your tracks Djflem (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy there! Calling me an ass does not further your point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bundling or that edit. The article was added to the nomination shortly after the nomination was made which is clearly how its supposed to be done as per WP:MULTIAFD. Just because you do not like the multiAFD process does not mean I cannot use it.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You DO NOT know what do not like. Refrain from such statements. Wikipedia:WDAFD is the correct procedure.Djflem (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WDAFD can't be used because several people have supported deletion of all the articles in this multiAfD, explicitly stating that the article in contention should be deleted, therefore it is not possible for Rusf10 to now withdraw it. Now as I keep saying, if you want it kept, then vote keep for that article! Prince of Thieves (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, even if I wanted to withdraw the nomination at this point all I could possibly do is withdraw my support for deletion, I cannot close the discussion and renominate since others have voted delete. That said, I am still standing by my original statement that the nomination was appropriate and is backuped by further evidence of WP:COPYVIO in many of the articles (possibly all, I haven't checked) including DeGise.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete remainder except for DeGise in this nomination (note this would be a procedural keep for DeGise). After a search for each nominee, the remaining subjects are county legislators and have only received local coverage of their work. Our precedents (per WP:POLOUTCOMES) is that local politicians must receive "national or international press coverage beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role." The problem I have with WP:BUNDLE is that a tendency exists to address entire categories of subjects without evaluating whether any subject may "a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits" (WP:MULTIAFD). (In addition, nominating more than one subject for deletion limits the ease of searching for information about each subject). In the present case, DeGise is a county executive, and not just a county freeholder. I do think that a county executive is more akin to a mayor because of their executive authority and should similarly be evaluated on its own merit (which is different than the usual outcomes of county legislators). Because of that, DeGise should have been nominated individually. --Enos733 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some confusion about the difference between a freeholder and county executive. Several counties in New Jersey do not have an executive, the freeholders choose a director among themselves instead to serve the same role.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense in general that there may not be a distinction in all cases (similar to mayors in a council-manager form of government). In the case of Hudson County the executive is directly elected by the people. --Enos733 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both the freeholders themselves and the county executive are directly elected.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- A more through analysis of the DeGise article reveals it was largely copy and pasted from [2] which is a common theme of most of these articles. The website indicates that it is copyrighted material.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While it is convenient to use or ignore policy when it suits a preferred outcome it can be taken as a form of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Active or tactic complicicy for the abuse of the policies, guidelines, procedures to which editors (to the best of their knowledge) adhere and upon which they rely is damaging to Wikipedia. A sense of propriety should prevail and not suffer for the sake of expediency.

One sees at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery (2nd nomination) User:Rusf10 was unable to use Wikipedia:WDAFD because it "woudln't be valid because people had already voted on the bundled nomination before I removed the second article." (demonstrating a understanding of the policy). Yet, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr. with this edit User:Rusf10 did exactly that: withdraw the nomination of Joseph C. Irwin after someone had already voted on the bundled nomination, thus contaminating it. There was some consensus by editing to accommodate a correction of the error. Should the community afford User:Rusf10 the same consideration here? Despite User:Rusf10's shifting opinion that county executive and freeholder are the same (which they are not, and thus should not be bundled) and that s/he believes the error is a moot point (which it is not), I suggest that s/he be allowed the opportunity to fix this nomination by withdrawing the nomination for Thomas A. DeGise and, using proper procedure, do the right thing. (and trust, learn from the mistakes?)Djflem (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes too far, it might become a trainwreck. Then people could delete all the non-notable politician articles separately or in neat little packages according to the clear need for perfection. But it would be the same end result. I think Rusf10 is unlikely to use WP:IAR here regardless of pressure, but anyone can do a non-admin procedural speedy keep on that one article to remove it from the bundle. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was accommodation for Rusf10's WP:IAR at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr., already a bad precedent. Allowing expediency to prevail over propriety here would be complicit, but gracious. Wikipedia:PROCEDURALCLOSE/KEEP on the one article would be proper procedure. (Give the other tainted nom a slide based on discussion).Djflem (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but given the absolute disaster that occured when someone last got Rusf10 to "fix" his AfD bundle, it is completely reasonable to request that either Djflem does it himself or he gets another uninvolved party to do it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better, I posted on AN/I to get an admin to come over and deal with this whichever way is best. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I guess that was what had to be done because Djflem is not letting this go. Besides the fact that s/he is wrong here, repeating the same thing over and over again here is not helping anyone. As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas J. Lynch Jr., that's different, I withdrew my support for the nomination of one of the articles, the discussion was not closed and anyone who wants to vote to delete the article that I withdrew still could. Notice that I did NOT remove the deletion notice from Joseph C. Irwin for this reason (although someone else did). It was not WP:IAR--Rusf10 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the question of inclusion in this AfD is not really relevant as all fail General Notability Guidelines and notability criteria for politicians and judges. I see only pedantic arguments that DeGise has a different title but largely similar function. There are no arguments that his article should be kept on its merits so running another AfD would be a waste of time. -- Wow! A situation that WP:IAR was actually designed for! Jbh ^Talk 16:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of them are notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noification This nomination is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico requires attention.

Delete all- none of these are notable, and cries of "one of these is not like the others" do not really ring true. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction (http://wwww.hudsoncountyclerk.org/county-officials/):

Office	Branch	Term	Election
County Executive	Executive	4 years	At-large (county-wide)	Thomas A. DeGise
Freeholder Board of Chosen Freeholders	Legislative	3 years	One for each of 9 districts	District 1:Kenneth Kopacz District 2:William O'Dea District 3:Jerry Walker District 4:Joel Torres District 5:Anthony L. Romano Jr. District 6:Tilo Rivas District 7:Caridad Rodriguez District 8:Anthony P. Vainieri Jr. District 9:Albert Cifelli

Djflem (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt: So what? Are there any policy based reasons to keep DeGise? Is there any reason that you can put forward that his article would be kept at an individual AfD? If so make that argument. Otherwise the article will simply be put up for AfD, likely by the closer of this if it is 'procedural', and it will be deleted after seven more days and more wasted time. As far as the notability criteria for politicians and judges goes - much like a rose, an elected county official by any other name... Jbh ^Talk 14:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a distinction without a relevant difference, and attempting to get the discussion shut down on this basis seems a lot like obstructionist wikilawyering. Reyk _YO! 10:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most or all. County-level officials generally do not meet NPOL. I won't comment on the one exception, as I have not reviewed it specifically. I suggest deleting all but that one for now, and then a separate nom for that as a stand-alone for more thorough review. Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except for McGise, which should be procedurally kept pending a separate AFD as it is a case that is different enough to the others so as to warrant closer examination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Strong delete all We need to act expeditiously to remove all these articles on non-notable politicians from New Jersey. These articles were created on the assumption that holding the office of county freeholder was a sign of default notability. This is not the case, and so we need to move to remove these articles, which in some cases have somehow survived more than 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, the wording is promotional. Deb (talk) 19:48, 2 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.