Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rusf10 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:NPOL, mayors of a town of about 40,000 people are not notable. Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep That guide is for creating individual articles on mayors, not lists. The guide makes no mention of a cutoff in population. --RAN (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No there is not a cutoff. However, the guidelines state that they must eithier have 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. In this case, No OR 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.- Outside of local news, this is not the case 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".- In this case, that is true, it does not--Rusf10 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "significant press coverage" does not exclude statewide or local coverage. --RAN (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The list should not exist because the contents of it are not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mayors of Teaneck who are not notable for any other reason:




 * Keep all the GNG says if they have sufficient references they are notable. I have a feeling this is a personal issue. There is also no requirement to be notable for multiple things. --RAN (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lack of sources is not the issue, its notability. Yes, there is plenty of local press coverage here. And I do not have any personal issues with you, so I don't know where that's coming from.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Significant press coverage" does not exclude statewide or local coverage. Notability is determined by sources. The "personal" was about the city, not about you and me. -- --RAN (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry, I misunderstood. But no I don't have anything against Teaneck, its a nice town.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * also sourcing is an issue in the John Abraham article, there are none. And most of the others the only reliable source is basically an obituary. --Rusf10 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The Abrams article was just a two sentence stub so I redirected it to the list and incorporated the text there. I have no objection to expanding it in the future. --RAN (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the redirecting; please don't blank/redirect pages that are the subject of an active AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep all and relist separately. This is a train wreck. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep all - Faulty nomination. Original nom of the list is based on notability for individuals. Addition of individuals is based on "because they are mayors of Teaneck who are not notable for any other reason," which is obviously incorrect even just looking at the leads of the articles. No objection to speedy renomination of individuals. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- there seems to be objection to the bundling of these nominations. I figure that they were related pages, so I nominated together to avoid clutter. I therefore will withdraw this nomination and renominate each page separately.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2017 (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.