Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

List of non-notable mayors of a relatively small town. Sourced to a collection of obituaries from local newspapers. Fails WP:NLIST Rusf10 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people,  and New Jersey. Rusf10 (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete an overly detailed list of mayors of a place that is not important enough for mayors to be even sometimes notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I just don't like it is not a valid AfD argument. Djflem (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

jjrj24 (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the municipality should have mayors is not relevant to this discussion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per (bold mine) plus fact that city size is not a Wikipedia policy-based criteria and that Wikipedia lists do not require persons, places, things on lists to be individually notable. Per cited WP:NLIST, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")", such as this one which is well-organised.
 * SALAT: This list fulfills objective as it is limited in size and topic and is not trivial and is encyclopedic and related to human knowledge
 * Wikipedia:LISTPURP #1: This list fulfills requirement because the list structured around a theme and is annotated.
 * LISTCRITERIA: This list fits this criteria because listed items fit its narrow scope and are topically relevant making it encyclopedic, comprehensive (and possibly) complete.
 * Wikipedia:NOTDIR#1: This list does not contravene this policy as it is not a loosely associated topic and its entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.
 * Wikipedia:CSC: This list fulfills this criteria explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. There is parent article in which it can be embedded for a merge, but would overwhelm that article.Djflem (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:CSC states: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. ... (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.). Don't think CSC can be used to support keeping this. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep "Not otherwise notable" notable is subjective. Useful for people researching nation, state and town history as well as new references. "poorly sourced" History books and news articles reflect the basic facts of the start of end dates of their terms as well as names.
 * Merge into Long Branch, New Jersey. Unsure if it's enough for a list on its own given list requirements, but would be a useful contribution to the article relating to the town itself given how much information is in the article. Royal Autumn Crest (talk)
 * Keep per Djflem Patapsco913 (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. I'm pretty skeptical of Wikipedia editors doing original-research-by-synthesis with complicated list criteria, but a list of mayors is the kind of thing that's acceptable.  Yes, it's a small town - so what?  As long as valid sources exist, it's fine.  SnowFire (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - these type of lists, as long as they are sourced, form a valuable, if tiny, resource for researchers. Onel 5969  TT me 12:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a policy-based reason, see WP:VALUABLE--Rusf10 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See LISTPURP: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists Djflem (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2022 (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.