Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederic P. Reichey


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Frederic P. Reichey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NPOL, county-level politicians are not given automatic notability. Also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in any reliable source. Rusf10 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  23:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep there is enough information in his two obituaries one from New Jersey and one from Schenectady for a stand alone article. the Schenectady is behind a paywall at Genealogy Bank and my subscription has expired.  --RAN (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Two obituaries in local newspapers do not give someone notability. Having enough information to write an aritcle and establishing notability are two different things.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no restrictions in WP:GNG on using local media as reliable sources for notability. If you want to change the GNG, lobby for changes on the talk page there. --RAN (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just an issue of local media, you're relying on obituaries, that's routine coverage. When you, I, or anyone else here passes, we'll have obituaries in the local newspaper too, it doesn't establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, here we go again, I will just cut and paste again WP:Routine: "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc." No mention of obits as you already know ... and please don't bother with "these are just examples" if they meant obits they would have mentioned them. --RAN (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, how you love to copy and paste that, everything must be a literal reading. So my grandparents both got obits in local newspapers, can I write articles on them? It's funny though you started with everyone who has a New York Times obit gets an article and now its anyone who has an obit anywhere gets an article. So I guess pretty much all dead people have defacto notability. Your keep argument should be summed up as "Keep- dead people are notable."--Rusf10 (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Those are listed as examples of what qualifies as routine coverage, not as the entire list of everything that qualifies. Obituaries are routine, because every single person who exists at all gets one somewhere whether they passed a Wikipedia notability criterion or not. My grandparents would qualify for Wikipedia articles if the existence of an obituary in the local newspaper was all it took. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would violate the "Wikipedia is not genealogy" rule. Lobby to get WP:GNG and lobby to get WP:Routine changed, then you delete tens of thousands of biographies instead of dozens. --RAN (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That says "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.". If we want to read that literally, it only applies to listing relatives in subject's article. It says nothing about creating new topics for each person.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. While RAN is correct that WP:GNG doesn't preclude local coverage from being included in the notability pool, we do have a consensus that if a person fails all of our SNGs, and so you're shooting for "still notable just because media coverage exists" instead, then that media coverage does have to extend beyond the purely local and routine. For similar examples, an actress who has had only local stage roles with the local youth theatre company, but has never had a film or television role that might actually get her over WP:NACTOR, does not clear GNG just because she's been profiled in the local newspaper; the owner of a local non-chain restaurant does not clear GNG just because the local newspaper's food critic wrote a restaurant review; and smalltown mayors do not clear GNG just because their death resulted in an obituary in their local newspaper just as could be simply expected for any mayor of anywhere. If a person;s notability claim passes an SNG as a topic of legitimately broad interest, then we don't care how local or non-local the sourcing is (a state legislator doesn't have to get nationalized coverage to qualify for an article, for example) — but if you're going for "doesn't pass any SNG but is still notable under GNG just because press coverage exists", then you do have to show significantly more press coverage than other equivalent people at the same level of significance could also show. But nothing here passes NPOL, and none of the coverage suggests a reason why he could be considered more notable than the norm for an otherwise non-notable role. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for politicians coverage needs to be more than routine local coverage. That is not achieved here. RAN would have us keep the current system where a few places have dedicated local historians mining old nespaper archieves and get articles on people orders of magnitude less notable than we get for any other place. This is not the way to approach creating a world-wide Encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete routine unimportant career with routine unimportant coverage. The only US newspaper om which having a full obit is accepted here as a sufficient indication of notability is the NYTimes. He wouldn't have been notable when alive, and his death didn't increase it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 4 February 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.