Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eleanor Kieliszek


 * 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.  Sandstein  22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Eleanor Kieliszek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NPOL notability. Mayor of town of about 40,000 is not notable. Only sources are local newspaper and article about police shooting incident which she did not have involvement in (and is not even mentioned). Rusf10 (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete THe local sources just are not enough to show notability. Nothing about Teaneck gives the mayor default notability, and the sources do not rise above routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep See argument at Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey. --RAN (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I know the nom is eager to delete articles about New Jersey mayors, but she/he should take the time to read each article before nominating it. Maybe being mayor of Teaneck is not per se sufficient to make a person notable, but being the first woman to serve as mayor, and the attendant publicity, usually is. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Being the first woman mayor Teaneck (not the country, not the state) is not notable. If it were then we would have articles for the first female mayor of every city in the world.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully. I didn't write that being the first woman mayor of Teaneck made her notable. I wrote that the attendant publicity made her notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So the first female mayor of every small town that receives a write up in the local press is notable...so all of them then...Szzuk (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What a moronic argument. See WP:ALLORNOTHING. (And when did The New York Times become "the local press"?) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like you are calling me a moron. Which is abusive. Szzuk (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read more carefully. I called your argument moronic. When I call somebody a moron, there's no doubt about it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is rude - WP:UNCIVIL. Szzuk (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your argument can file a complaint against me at WP:ANI. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I still do not know what you mean by "attendant publicity". Yes, the New York Times is a well known newspaper around the world, but it does have a local section. If you notice at the top of the referenced article, it says "N.Y./Region".--Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Where should they have put it? On the "International/World" page, with news from Paris, London, and Jerusalem? Get off your high horse and be realistic. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You completely missed the point. The New York Times has international coverage, national coverage, and local/regional coverage. The local coverage is much less notable than the others.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you completely miss the concept of notability. News isn't notable, and news coverage isn't more or less "notable" depending where in the newspaper it appears (except the gossip and op-ed pages). On Wikipedia, subjects of articles are notable, and that has to do with coverage by reliable sources. Being covered in The New York Times is as good as it gets in the United States in terms of the press; it's the newspaper of record. And like all newspapers that are more than one page, they cover national news in the "National" section, world news in the "International" section, and yes, local news in the "Metro" section.— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject does not inherit notability from the newspaper that publishes an article. Not everything the Times publishes is notable. If they do a story on a high school football game in the sports section, that does not make the quarterback in that game notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You must never have read The New York Times to make a remark like that. Trust me, if they reported on a high school football game, it would be a notable game—if for no other reason than the fact that The New York Times wrote about it. (You really ought to quit instead of repeatedly demonstrating that you jumped into the deep end of the pool without knowing how to swim.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm done with you! You obviously think the New York Times = "The word of God". If the NYT was such an infallible source, we wouldn't have this article: New York Times controversies. But I'm not even trying to make that point, I just saying that it is possible that a obituary doesn't give notability. GNG says you need significant coverage. Why didn't they write articles on her while she still was alive??? Your bias here is obvious and I don't really need to keep responding to personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You are confusing reliability with infallibility, they are not synonyms. What makes a news source reliable is that they acknowledge and correct mistakes. The GNG makes no mention of any obituary exclusion rule. --RAN (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the obituary is unreliable (although the NYT sometimes is and that is a topic for another discussion), I was just frustrated with his attitude and condescending tone. To answer your question, the guideline is "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I'd have to believe that there would be significant coverage of the person while he or she was still alive in order to be notable. Very few people gain notability upon their death. There are plenty of obituaries written about non-notable people.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. NN mayor. There is no assertion of notability in the article. There are refs but they substantiate that she lived a very humdrum life. Szzuk (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with the excellent points already made by RAN and Malik Shabazz. Aside from being the first female mayor of a major NYC suburb, Kieliszek and her town were the subjects of regional and national attention in the aftermath of the Phillip Pannell shooting incident. On a side note, I guarantee she lived a much less "humdrum life" than any of us on here. Scanlan (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * She became mayor several months after the shooting. What role did she have in the incident?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per and . The article is well developed, with enough reliable third party coverage to confirm wp:notability.  Poeticbent  talk  19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources in the article and those about her in other sources all address her notability. See these details about her being selected deliberately as mayor in the wake of the Pannell shooting in the book Color Lines by Mike Kelly. Alansohn (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, they chose her to be mayor as someone who would not be controversial (ie. somebody that everybody likes). How does that make her notable? I will ask again, what role did she have in the shooting incident or even the investigation of the incident?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, in addition to broad coverage in newspapers, she's also a major subject in a book. Rusf10, as an editor who is an utter non-contributor (the overwhelming majority of your last 500+ edits are all related to deletionism), it's hard to take your evaluations of sources seriously, as you have no evident ability to identify sources the way editors who contribute to this encyclopedia do. If you had performed your obligations under WP:BEFORE -- as you have apparently never done -- you would have found these ample sources and either accepted that the article met the notability standard or you would have added the sources you had found to the article. That you have refused to do so and have failed to distinguish between notable and non-notable articles only undermines your credibility. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What undermines your credibility is you can't answer my question. She is not a major subject of that book, she gets a few mentions (that is 11, in a 500+ page book).--Rusf10 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Rusf10, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  Poeticbent  talk 20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment At Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey, nominator stated, "I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mayors of Teaneck who are not notable for any other reason:..."Eleanor Kieliszek".  However, no AfD or other notice was posted on the article, and when the nominator withdrew, no notice was posted on the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about here. The AFD notice has been posted on the article since the beginning. The sole reason I withdrew the first nomination was because of objections to bundling the articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As per the nominator's statement at Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey, (emphasis removed), "Yes, there is plenty of local press coverage here."  GNG has no definition for "local source".  Further, the nom understands that there is a suitable redirect target, which means that notability is not a rationale for deletion, yet the nomination ignores the policy WP:ATD.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't take my quote out of context, that was a blanket statement on all of the articles, not specifically this one. Local sources are expected to cover towns events, mayors, etc. that would be important to the local community but has no national or international significance. Third, a close look at these sources reveals that most are obituaries. Even the most unnotable people still have obituaries.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your statement at the previous AfD had another sentence, (emphasis not included) "Lack of sources is not the issue, its notability. Yes, there is plenty of local press coverage here." How have I mistaken the context when you've nominated four of those five articles for deletion, and redirected the fifth with three sources?  Your claim that the topic has no national or international significance is not sourced with evidence.  Whether you are right or you are wrong, it is not a GNG concept.As for obituaries, GNG is fine with obituaries, especially those in the NYT, which are generally considered strong evidence of notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. She really doesn't seem to pass as easily as some here may think, but I think she does pass. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- Just to recap, the following are the sources we have in the artilce: 1. Obituary 2. An article in the town newspaper 3. an obituary, this time from the funeral home 4. marriage records 5. A historical document from the local library 6. An article written for the local college magazine 7. A NYT article about a shooting that doesn't even mention Eleanore Kieliszek And for all the talk we had about the New York Times above, I can't actually find a New York Times obituary for Eleanore Kieliszek, so I don't know why it was assumed she had one. Of the articles I can find in the New York Times, none of them have more than a passing mention or a few quotes from Eleanore Kieliszek. So the whole is the NYT a local source or not argument is actually irrelevant.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2017 (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.