Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazen Kimball


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 05:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hazen Kimball

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Kimball's claim to notability seems to be having been mayor of Hoboken. This is a city that is neither large enough or regionally important enough for being mayor of it to justify having an article for that fact alone. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect the article meets the general notability guideline. I am not sure what the population size has to do with notability. All mayors should be redirected and never deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment claiming this article reaches GNG makes no sense. There is one mention in an obiturary in a local paper, and a possibly even just one line mention in a local history. Nothing that would reach the General Notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of souring within articles. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 21:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect to Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey. The New York Times is NOT a "local paper", but it listed him with several others in its "obituary notes" and couldn't be bothered to ascertain his age ("between fifty-five and sixty"), so it wasn't a full-blown obituary. Fails GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The NYT was not nearly as important a paper in 1890 as it would later become.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep though there is not a lot here. I think all mayors are notable under "local politicians" section of the guideline and that is regardless of the population of the city. The rules do not mention mayor or populations. Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment He appears to have played a role in Hoboken's decision not to consolidate with Jersey City. Added refs: quoting . 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As a major local political leader, with ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, including an obituary in a national paper of record and coverage in contemporaneous encylopedic sources. Despite its size, Hoboken punches far above its weight, making it a regionally important city, 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) 01:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. The NYT obituary is sufficient. I also think that being mayor and president of a bank, taken together, is sufficient for a person who died in 1890. I suspect that BIO was framed with BLPs in mind, and doubt that it is relevant. James500 (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mayor of a city of 50,000 people. Just not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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) 09:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of notable sources and per Andrew Davidson. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:24, 24 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.