Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Crabiel


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 11:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

David Crabiel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

County politician and unsuccessful congressional candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 06:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable politician under WP:NPOL and not WP:GNG. Appreciate nom's general cleanup of New Jersey political cruft but suggest to avoid other NJ articles for now until controversies die down - there may be county freeholders in other states to clean up in the interim? SportingFlyer  talk  06:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither being a county freeholder nor being an unsuccessful candidate in a congressional election is an automatic notability freebie per WP:NPOL, but the article isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — apart from a single obituary in the local newspaper, which isn't enough to carry a GNG pass all by itself, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources rather than notability-assisting media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've expanded the article based on 8 newspaper articles about Crabiel from newspapers.com. There are over 10,000 newspaper articles referencing him (starting with some from his boyhood), there are a couple more small things I plan to add, but those 8 are the coverage that is most in-depth about Crabiel I could find. Most of the 10,000+ are likely to be routine references, of course. The summary for his life as being encyclopedic is: he operated 6 funeral homes, served in county and city politics from 1960 until his death in 2008, was active on numerous boards and community service organizations, leading to the naming of a building at Middlesex County College for him, and donations through a scholarship foundation in his name to Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital led to a dedication of a fireplace in the hospital to him. The article is cited, NPOV, NOR, and V. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but I still don't see notability here. Over half of the sources are from one local newspaper, the Central New Jersey Home News. The only articles that cover him directly currently in the article that aren't his obituaries: which isn't exactly a feature article on him. He's mentioned here  as "a freeholder." Simply not notable apart from the fact he was a hyper-local politician for many years, and that doesn't pass WP:GNG SportingFlyer  talk  04:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't notice this message earlier (I usually do for AfDs without a ping needed, but I'm pinging you because of my delayed response). No need to apologize, out of respect I'm going to give a somewhat detailed answer if that is ok. I take the view at discussions about deceased figures that local coverage is not necessarily a problem. GNG/NBIO do use dictionary-based definitions such as "worthy of note" as a descriptor for what is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but do not discriminate against a subject being worthy of note only in a single state or village. WP:RS does have some discussion which casts a negative light on using local sources as reliable sources, such as WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, but again, it does not discriminate expressly against local sources, assuming a "reputation for checking the facts" (WP:QUESTIONABLE - sorry for overlinking, I just want to be clear). V is a bit restrictive as well, listing reliable sources to include "mainstream newspapers". NPOV notes a need for a range of sources when a "bias in sources" is possible. In my opinion, OR isn't an issue here, but others can judge whether better if my wordings are NOR/NPOV/NSYNTH. So while an article like this might require a bit more work to write and a bit more effort to insure quality, I don't see a problem in our core content policies for an article like this, nor in our guidelines. There are arguments like the one you make in POLOUTCOMES, but there are many AfDs for articles like this which do not get deleted and many which do, so I don't see that non-vetted supplement as being terribly useful once an article is expanded during the process of an AfD. On the other hand, there are reasons to think the broader community wants articles like this and finds them encyclopedic. For instance, WP:LOCALINT failed in part because it was too restrictive. Also, our longstanding policy, WP:NOTPAPER, encourages users to write articles on a broad range of topics, so long as it is encyclopedic. In my opinion, public officials who are no longer living (so BLP/PROMO concerns no longer apply) who received coverage over an extended period of time or in a range of sources in a region and about whom sources exist so that a START quality article is likely are suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. In my opinion, there is no consensus against this and some consensus in its favor. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep My searches supports assertions by Smmurphy that substantive sourcing exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG. --RAN (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * keep. I've argued elsewhere that we should expand our coverage under WP:POLITICIAN to major US party nominees for national level office, thoughnot to those who did not succeed in the primary. US Congress is a national level office, so he would qualify. The degree to which we use local sources for this sort of an article has never been settled.  DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.