Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Phil Murphy


 * 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. Neither side of this discussion has policy on their side and not seeing any opinion's changing J04n(talk page) 11:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Governorship of Phil Murphy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

TOO SOON. He just started. All of the other articles about U.S. governorships are high profile governorships where the officeholder had 2+ terms. Furthermore, they sought, are seeking, or are speculated to seek the Presidency. Most are also high profile individuals that are or are almost household names. There are plenty of other governorships that are more notable than this and don't have an article yet. I do think we should have more of these articles, but I don't see why we can't cover this particular governorship in the Phil Murphy and Government of New Jersey pages. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 01:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * KEEP Nomination is completely based in Other stuff exists. It suggests that there "should be more of these articles" and that same time it should be merged/re-directed to into another. It cites comparisons and contrasts that do not consider the merits of the article in and of itself and creates criteria that are not policy based, but expresses non-objective personal beliefs/preference. The cited essay TOO SOON, simply says: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." and is not applicable here: the article is properly sourced, so clearly that is not the case here. It easily fulfills Verifiability.Djflem (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article, as it exists, provides dozens of reliable and verifiable sources about the Governorship of Phil Murphy; the notability standard is clearly satisfied here. There is no requirement that some number of terms or years must be served before such an article may be created. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge- to Phil Murphy. It is WP:TOOSOON, the guy has only been governor for one month, he really hasn't done much yet. What the article actually describes is his campaign platform, not what he has actually done. Most of this is already covered in the Phil Murphy article. If I were to remove all the campaign promises from the article, we'd be left with only a few sentences about what he has actually accomplished. Maybe a year or two from now when we start running out of room at the Phil Murphy article it may become appropriate to spin this out.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The essay WP:TOOSOON, simply says: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." Which part is being cited? Sources do exist and all info is paases Verifiability.Djflem (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not getting it, Phil Murphy has not actually done much of anything yet. The sources you are using are about his campaign promises, not what he has done. If we remove all the campaign promises from the article we have three sentences. "On January 29, 2018, Murphy signed an executive order reinstating New Jersey back into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.In February 2018 he signed legislation committing New Jersey to the Paris Agreement. In February 2018, Murphy signed his first piece of legislation, the restoration of $7.5 millon annual funding for Planned Parenthood, which had been cut early in the Christie administration." Those three sentences can be easily covered in the Phil Murphy article.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you're not getting it:
 * 1. When responding to my posts REFRAIN from unsolicited, uninformed, uninteresting, useless statements such as "what you know", "what you should know", "what you would do", "what you like", "what you think", "you're not getting it" and other similar detritus, as you have done here and elsewhere). If you expect Civility, show it.
 * 2. One doesn't get to cherry-pick and choose which sourced verifiable material is valid for convenience purposes, so why are you doing that?Djflem (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and merge - Keep since article is a relevant split of the parent article (it contains information which could not be treated to such an extent in the parent article, et cetera), merge important details because there's currently only one sentence about the governorship in the parent article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge based on a review of what we have in Wikipedia so far, it doesn't appear governorships are presumptively notable, and there aren't any articles about his governorship as a whole, or why the fact he was governor is notable. SportingFlyer  talk  04:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * other stuff exists argument are not really validDjflem (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact all other governorships on this site are from highly notable governors is a really interesting point, I think. There's a lot of sources, but I don't actually think his governance is notable enough for a stand-alone article, especially since it's only been a month, and because there's a ton of New Jersey political fancruft on this site to begin with. I can't really put my finger on it, though. Feels WP:SPIPpy, especially because so many of the references are WP:TOOSOON "He says he will sign..." SportingFlyer  talk  08:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How can references be TOO SOON? References verify the content in independent secondary reliable sources. Are your feeelngs about SPIP backed up w/ anything that other editors can do something with? Djflem (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article now stands at 21,852 bytes, and is sure be vastly expanded. Why merge only to split again?
 * Comment I had a lot of trouble with this article and I was wondering if I just didn't like it: it's basically a collection of WP:ROUTINE news articles about a new state governor without any summary, and many of the cites don't even say what he has accomplished, but rather discuss what he will accomplish. Also, no current state governors and very few former state governors have articles on their governorship, but that argument fails WP:OSE. Other AfD's on governorship have been due to forks (Ronald Reagan) or NPOV (Sarah Palin). This might feel like it's entirely out of left field, but I finally figured out what was bothering me after voting in an AfD about a sports league season (which needs to pass WP:EVENT): a governorship probably has to pass WP:EVENT to be notable too. Yes, there's lots written on Mr. Murphy's governorship so far, but they're all local. So many of these sources are routine political articles from nj.com. The Washington Post article was about the fact he got elected. The New York Times wrote a story about his election and the guy he put in to manage transit. Basically, this article as it stands is a simple regurgitation of local news sources for a very recent governor who hasn't made any sort of impact yet. The Sarah Palin article, for instance, has national coverage about her governorship (not about her election). This ... doesn't. SportingFlyer  talk  02:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep apart too much info for his biography if you merge it back in. Every modern governor should have enough info available for this type of article, that we do not have them is because no one is eager enough to write one. --RAN (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to make clear: this is essentially what I'm saying (+ the part about there being not enough info in the parent article) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. He's only had a couple of months in office. His (stated) positions on various issues aren't especially notable: Actions speak louder than words, and he hasn't had much time to act yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be reflected and is reflected in the article. So that's about Murphy, what about the article? What does notable positions? Are here any objectve arguments about the article?Djflem (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:COMMONSENSE. He is already in office and stuff is happening every day. At a minimum this kind of an article is a useful placeholder to which information about various important events/aspects of his administration can be added as needed. There is no point in deleting the article now and then waiting for some magic marker to be passed. Nsk92 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep., pretty much as said by and others. The material is certain to be forthcoming,and the page will certainly need to be created.  DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no reason we would need to have stand alone articles on every governor of every state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And what does this have to do with this article precisely? We're not here to discuss "stand alone articles on every governor", but to determine if this article on this governor meets or doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria and sourcing minimums for inclusion (which it does, as a matter of fact). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That may be your opinion, but what are your policy-based arguments, if any?Djflem (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the subject notable? Yes, the governorship of Phil Murphy has been covered in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources - that solves WP:GNG. Is the article in it's current state appropriately sourced (for at least the major points)? Yes. Thus, article meets both GNG (for inclusion) and WP:V (which would be grounds for deleting if the whole article was unsourced OR - it isn't). Q.E.D. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Phil Murphy until a split is actually required. Paul LePage is 121K after 7 years in office - Murphy is only about 60K. Plenty of room for expansion. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In response to TOOSOON and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - not valid. And the page on G.W. Bush's governorship (supposedly, a high profile individual with 2+ terms) - only 12 kbytes, while this one already has 23 kbytes. Given that both articles will likely grow, common sense would be to keep them separate - there is no requirement that all information about a subject be treated in one single article, whether we ignore size criteria or not. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is not a split; it is material not covered elsewhere.Djflem (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's because the parent article literally has nothing on it. However, even if we wanted to add this back in the parent article, we'd need to considerably trim it down (i.e. remove content). Therefore, this article is a valid split which covers a certain aspect of a subject in more details than the main article, and should be kept because it meets the general criteria of notability. State governors are obviously high-level political figures (even more than, say, provincial premiers in Canada) and thus, are notable enough to have in-depth coverage, irrespective of the tendency to cover celebrities (i.e. President/Vice-President candidates) more. If there's enough content to make a fully-fleshed out article (and there is), then we shouldn't just remove it because "there is no other like it" - the WP concept of precedent is much more flexible than the legal one, and if it prevents us from having a decent article on something, then ignore it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: This governorship has more than enough significant mentions in newspapers to meet the general notability guidelines. Cardamon (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If you look at the sources which actually talk about his governorship, almost all (24 of 27) of those mentions are WP:ROUTINE coverage from nj.com. The others are a blog-paper thing talking about New Jersey politics and a radio station news blurb which is actually about a senator. SportingFlyer  talk  03:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: He may not have done anything significant as of yet compared to other governors, but he hasn't been in office for much time. Also, once he does do something significant, this article will just have to be created again, so what's the point of deleting this now?–Daybeers (talk) 04:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because we're not talking about recreating it a few weekss or a month or two from now. It probably wouldn't be recreated for a minimum of a year (maybe two). Like I said, if we take out all the campaign promises and focus on his time as governor (which is really what the article is supposed to be about), there would only be a few sentences left. In the meantime, the relevant content can be added to the Phil Murphy article.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is the "we" is the post claims to represent?
 * What is the prediction of one (maybe two) based on? And why?
 * Who says the criteria mentioned is "what the article should be about"? Btw, the article does "focus on his time as governor".
 * Which "few" sentences would be chosen, by whom, and who would move them to make a comprehensive contribution? Can "we" expect a proposal on the talk page? Djflem (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, once he does do something significant, this article will just have to be created again... Considering that we only have about ten of these governorship articles, and considering that there are many other governors who did significant things, I don't think your reasoning is correct. Lepricavark (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, lots of governors do significant things at a local level without having their governorship be particularly notable, or notable enough for Wikipedia. What makes this governorship "notable" so far is about 25 local nj.com articles, most of which are speculative. I think it can be safely merged back into the main article. SportingFlyer  talk  23:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOL doesn't require politicians to be important on an international level (in fact, it even explicitly mentions that "statewide office holders" are generally notable). I think it is safe to assume the criteria for sub-articles are the same as those for the parent article (plus the requirement that it not just be a content fork, that it meet WP:GNG and that it provide information which could not be easily covered in the parent article). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:COMMONSENSE. As noted above, we have articles of this type for governors who late ran for President or Vice President. Unless we plan to start creating these en masse, there is no reason why Murphy should have one. Lepricavark (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Invoking common sense isn't enough, see WP:NOCOMMON. And "unless we plan to start creating these en masse" is a nice (and off-topic) slippery slope - this discussion is about this article and whether it meets or doesn't meet inclusion criteria, not potential other ones (and even then, if there's enough content to include them, why not? as I wrote above, these are high-ranking politicians, not some random persons on the street. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a slippery slope at all. My contention is not that we should delete this article because it might lead to a rash of similar other articles. Rather, I'm saying that this article is an anomaly and should be deleted unless we plan to make more articles for governors who are not nationally influential. Lepricavark (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You are sill using slip-slope argument, just rewording it. Every change at Wikipedia starts with one article and does not always conclude with people writing articles about their dogs. --RAN (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And since when is being "nationally influential" a criteria for inclusion? WP:N doesn't require that much notability for inclusion. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, we don't need an article like this one unless there is something particularly significant about a gubernatorial administration. I do not believe this article meets, or even comes close, to that standard. Generally, the important points of a governor's administration can and should be covered in the governor's biography. Nothing more than that is needed. Lepricavark (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:I don't like it isn't a good argument either, if you don't need it or don't like it, just do no read it. --RAN (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You seized on one part of my argument and ignored the rest of it. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change my mind. Same goes for the IP. Lepricavark (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep His election represents a major shift from previous Governor, who supported positions opposed to Murphy on most major issues.  New Jersey is not only one of our largest states (by population), its governor controls the bridges and tunnels that connect  New York City to Philadelphia and Washington D.C.,  Murphy wants to fund transit, Christie blocked the Trans Hudson Gateway Tunnel.  Coverage of Murphy's administration is gonna happen.  This placeholder aritcle will be expanded as events unfold.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You just made an WP:ILIKEIT argument. Just because you like his policies, doesn't mean that this is an appropriate article at this time. Also, nobody knows what he will actually end up accomplishing. Some of his proposals (which is what this article is really about) are likely to face opposition from his own party.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, despite the Bridgegate incident, the governor of NJ doesn't actually control the bridges. They are controlled by the Port Authority which is an agency created by the federal government which is supposed to have equal representation from both states.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I pointed out an important policy shift, not about Bridgegate (revealing about Christie's stye, but ZERO impact on infrastructure. ) I referenced the Trans Hudson Gateway Tunnel, which Christie killed (at least for a generation), as an example of the significant shifts on a number of issues that Murphy has already begun to work on - not least by the appointments he has ALREADY made at key agencies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Governorship of Phil Murphy, a large part of the governorship article is consistent w/ the subject (& should be expanded as it's a first in terms of its composition) and which would be questionable/inappropriate and likely be challenged in a Murphy bio.Djflem (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He already signed an executive order reinstating subsidies for wind turbines; and appointed Kevin S. Corbett to head New Jersey Transit (non-cabinet agency). My point is that contrary to some assertions above, significant stuff has already happened early in this governorship: Governorship of Phil Murphy; Governorship of Phil Murphy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:24, 15 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.