Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick B. Ogden


 * 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Frederick B. Ogden

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Odgen's main claim to fame is having been mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. That city has never had more than 70,000 residents, always been overshadowed by its larger regional neighbors, and was not even that big when he was mayor. His other claim to fame would just derive from being the son of a man who was notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He seems to have more than two claims to fame. It seems he was also judge of the district court, and "prominent" as a lawyer: . James500 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey for failing GNG and POLITICIAN. Nothing in The New York Times archives, and the existing references aren't about him. His father and grandfather have articles, but you can't inherit notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the coverage is sufficient. I also think that being a mayor, judge of the district court and prominent lawyer is sufficient for a person who died in 1893. I suspect that BIO was written with BLPs in mind, and doubt its applicability. The existing references are about him. He does not need to be their only, or even primary, subject. That said, he has, for example, his own dedicated article in a biographical dictionary, so there is no problem with the volume of coverage. He does not need to be mentioned in the NYT, and a search of its archives is not enough to establish non-notability. I don't think the size of Hoboken is an issue, and I don't think that 70,000 is small, since it is larger than some parliamentary constituencies. James500 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand Obituary and an encyclopedia entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep The nomination's argument is classic WP:NOTBIGENOUGH but "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." We have a guy currently at RfA who has been working for years on a place with a pop of just over 300 and most everyone seems to think that's wonderful.  Andrew D. (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 16:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. I can't find any support for the "prominent lawyer" claim above. The article doesn't say he was prominent (a slippery concept anyway). What source does? Bishonen &#124; talk 20:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources provided here establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Mayors of small towns rarely meet WP:NPOL. It's easy to find mention of them, but usually they don't have significant third party coverage, and this one is not an exception. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Mayor (size of Hoboken not a factor) with sufficient sources considering he is 19th century. And judge too. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2015 (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.