Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Fields

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 and redirect to List of sheriffs of Monmouth County, New Jersey. Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Fields (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)

County sheriff and county freeholder, neither of which gives an automatic pass of WP:POLITICIAN. The article is based on a single source and I don't see anything in the article that suggests his time in either position he held was particularly notable. Rusf10 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Contingent on outcome of discussion at Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey as to whether or not subsection Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriffs should be split to stand-alone article. this nomination-decision should postponed/re-listed. Djflem (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The cited source is a Cyclopedia and gives him substantial coverage. This establishes his notability. Keep. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To pass GNG, you need to have multiple sources, not just one.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. An entry in an established encyclopedia is all that's needed to establish notability. If a subject is already covered in an enecyclopedia we assume it is notable and that sources exist to support notability. And of coirse, it's not the only source covering this individual. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I am afraid you are mistaken. The full name of the book in question is "Biographical and portrait cyclopedia of the Third congressional district of New Jersey," that's a very specific title for a book. It's not like we're talking about Encyclopedia Britannica here.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As noted by nom this fails WP:POLOUTCOMES as a municipal officeholder. Therefore, subject needs to pass GNG. Currently only one source is in article, and a BEFORE fails to find others in RS, which indicates a GNG failure. Chetsford (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also oppose a merge or redirect. The section of Monmouth County, New Jersey / Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey to which the merge/redirect is proposed is an entirely unsourced section. And a section composed of an exhaustive list of sheriffs is out of format for most of our county articles. Ergo, it's only a matter of time before the target of the redirect itself gets deleted. Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - there's some kind of backstory here that's too much for me to get into right now with a level of thoroughness that would be fair to all sides. I withdraw participation in this AfD. Chetsford (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL and there's nothing better. Biographical and portrait cyclopedia of the Third congressional district of New Jersey is not exactly a "Dictionary of National Biography", and I suspect is a catalogue of low-level politicians. This does not help meet WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. County freeholder is not an office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the sourcing here is not adequate to demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm for an otherwise non-notable office. One source is not an automatic GNG pass just because it has the word "cyclopedia" in its own name — an entry in the Encyclopedia Brittanica or a national dictionary of biographies would certainly count for something, but a local "encyclopedia" is not automatically enough. The entry would have to be in an encyclopedia that is itself notable and widely recognized enough for us to have an article about the encyclopedia, not just in any random book that calls itself an encyclopedia. Every single person who ever held any office at the municipal or county levels anywhere could always be sourced to one blurb in a purely local directory of local officeholders — so if that were enough for a keep in and of itself, we'd have to keep an article about everybody who ever served at that level of office. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey and to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors Djflem (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / Redirect to Monmouth County, New Jersey and / or List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors The cyclopedia reference is a decent one, but there is insufficient evidence of standalone notability at this point. WP:BEFORE and WP:deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion all specify that options to deletion should be considered. There is content here that could be merged and at a minimum redirected to the proposed target.
  As stated in the header of this (and every other) AfD: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a place in the format of both Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey and List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors for information to be inserted.Djflem (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rusf10:, @Chetsford:, @K.e.coffman:, @Bearcat: - Per above, "...if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Pinging all those who haven't yet responded regarding any objections to a merge and / or redirect to Monmouth County, New Jersey and / or List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors and looking for some elaborations. Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated my rationale with opposition to merge/redirect. Chetsford (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn:I oppose the merge as per Chetsford. It is highly unusual that we have anything more than just a list of names for county sheriffs. And to be fair, if you're going to call people out and demand they give explanations, why not call out the one Merge vote above that also didn't offer an explanation?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford did not oppose merge; he withdrew his participation in this AfD.Djflem (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, sorry to call bullshit, but the decision to merge the content from a standalone article to Monmouth County, New Jersey was based on consensus reached at AE on an action in which you were the initiating party. Did you suddenly forget about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? At least Chetsford can rightfully claim to be unaware of this discussion when explaining why WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE should be ignored by claiming that anything deemed "highly unusual" (a.k.a. WP:IDONTLIKEIT) can't be converted into a redirect. What's your excuse. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally misrepresenting the AE Request. The consensus was a user with a topic ban on creating articles cannot change a redirect to an article and it was agreed that the article would be turned back into a redirect at least for now. There was no consensus on whether the article should be created or what information from it should be included in the Monmouth County article. It was briefly discussed, but it is complete "bullshit" (to use your favorite word) to say that there was a consensus on what content should be merged. AE is not a place to determine article content and you should know that. I believe that nothing more than a simple list should exist and there is no consensus that says otherwise. And you still didn't tell me why people who agree with you shouldn't also have to offer explanations as to why they support a merge.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• MergeComment. There is a place in the format of both Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey and List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors for information to be edited and be inserted. Reviewing aboved-mentioned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement one sees in "Statement by Francis" the most reasonable way to proceed regarding the material, in normal editing fashion.Djflem (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Unchanged (still "delete") -- I'm not convinced that the list itself is notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:45, 13 February 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.