Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Dwork

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 11:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Dwork

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO as notable for one event only. Only source on him is article about his suicide. Rusf10 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand the stub with info from his obituary. Generally a NYT obit is the defacto mark of notability. > 6,000 people die each day in the USA, The Times might write obits for 5 of them each day. --RAN (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I've heard this argument before. Although technically I don't believe that NYT article is an obituary, it more of an investigative report about his suicide. Regardless, I still believe "notable for only one event" applies--Rusf10 (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not news. The only reason the New York Times reported the news of this mayorial suicide is because the location is within the circulation area for the New York Times. This is a local news story, nothing more, and Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG makes no mention of the "circulation area" rule. The GNG does not require national level or international level recognition only "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --RAN (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you're making the assumption that New York Times article = guaranteed notability (this assumption should not be made about any source). We have to use some common sense here and ask what was the intended audience of the article? And if a subject is really notable shouldn't he deserve an article BEFORE he dies?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does require that if a person doesn't clear any subject-specific inclusion criteria (e.g. being a state legislator or a congressman), but instead you're going for "notable just because media coverage exists", then the coverage does need to expand, in either volume or geographic range, significantly beyond what could merely and routinely be expected to exist. Every mayor of everywhere always gets local media coverage, but every mayor of everywhere is not always notable enough to have an encyclopedia article — to make a smalltown mayor notable enough, we require either wider coverage beyond the local media, or at least an article that's extremely well substanced and referenced to a lot more than just two sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An obituary in the New York Times is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, particularly for a person who lived and worked and died inside the New York City media's local coverage area. (Just as an example of why the "NYT obit = automatic notability" argument doesn't fly, allow me to remind you that the NYT obituaried every last one of the nearly 3,000 people who died in the 9/11 attacks — but we decided against maintaining biographical articles about all of those 3,000 people just because an NYT obit existed, and deleted everybody who wouldn't have already passed a notability criterion for some other reason as of 9/10.) Every mayor of any place that exists at all would always clear GNG if all you had to do was show two or three pieces of purely local media coverage — what we require for mayors is that either (a) they serve as mayor of a major city, or (b) they can be referenced to a lot more and/or wider coverage than most other mayors of small towns could also show. And this article neither contains nor sources any actual substance about his mayoralty, either — it simply states that he served as mayor and committed suicide, the end. That's not enough; the NYT coverage, as it stands, just makes him a WP:BIO1E. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E is not an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mahwah, New Jersey Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2017 (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.