Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick W. Bohnstedt


 * 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. Overall consensus is for article retention. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 18:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Frederick W. Bohnstedt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The reason this article was created seems to be the result of a mass creation of articles on mayors of Hoboken, New Jersey. Hoboken is not a large enough or regionally important enough city to justify articles on mayors for holding that position. His office as a judge also does not seem to be high enough to rise to the level of passing notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey for failing WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. None of the existing references are about him specifically, and he gets one line in the best-selling tome Immigrants in Hoboken ("In the 1860s, Frederick W. Bohnstedt served as city coroner.") He was so notable that apparently nobody recorded when he died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs)
 * Keep He can qualify as a circuit judge too. Mayors of Hoboken are inherently notable as local politicians with proper sourcing. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to think that being a mayor, circuit judge and lieutenant colonel of militia, when taken together, is sufficient for a person who died about 1883. I suspect that BIO was framed with BLPs in mind, so I have doubts about its applicability. The sources are about "Frederick W Bohnstedt". He does not need to be their only, or even primary, subject. As he died a long time ago, there might be further coverage in undigitised offline print sources (WP:NRVE). There are many obviously notable figures whose date of death is not even approximately known (see here), so that isn't an argument against notability. James500 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is when the newspaper can't be bothered to find out. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, including coverage in contemporaneous encylopedic sources. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, drawing a disproportionate level of coverage from New York City and New Jersey newspapers, as evidenced here and in the article for the present mayor, Dawn Zimmer. The nominator appears to have prejudged this AfD based on the city's size and has made no mention or taken any consideration of the availability of reliable and verifiable sources or of alternative solutions as explicitly required by WP:BEFORE. The additional failure to combine a series of such AfDs all based on the same rationalization raises further issues. Alansohn (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep In the NYC metro region, Hoboken is an extremely important city, for political, transportation, residential and cultural reasons. Its importance to the region is not proportional to its population. Liz  Read! Talk! 13:58, 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 as satisfying WP:BASIC Djflem (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC. He has been the subject of significant coverage appropriate to the time period. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 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.