Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas R. Amato


 * 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. Consensus is article satisfies WP:GNG with news sources included, and that mentions in sources pushes the subject beyond what would be determined as "trivial". (non-admin closure) Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 15:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas R. Amato

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Taking to afd at the request of USER:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (I had the article WP:PROD before. He has added some sources to the article as they were almost non-existent before. However, I still believe this fails WP:POLITICIAN as county executives are not automatically notable. Sources are his biography at a law firm he works for, couple election articles that cover his opponent more than him, couple articles about a lawsuit against him by some disgruntled former county employees, an op-ed he wrote (that one would be primary), an article about some possible legislation affecting casinos owners in Atlantic City that has a single quote from him, and an article about him resigning from his position representing Resorts International. The common theme of these sources is that they all are very routine. Rusf10 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding, "I still believe this fails WP:POLITICIAN...", the lede of WP:N shows that WP:Notability (people) and WP:GNG are alternative paths of equal standing in determining Wikipedia's notability. WP:POLITICIAN is a part of WP:Notability (people).  Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I see enough information from reliable sources for a full biographical article per GNG. An opinion piece in the New York Times is not primary, it is not independent of him, just as an autobiography would not be independent of him. You have confused primary and independent sources before. However, not everyone is selected to write opinion pieces for the New York Times, adding to his notability. Also, as a reminder, you are supposed to be looking for sourcing WP:before you nominate, as you have been reminded multiple times. --RAN (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Primary/not-independent, whatever you want to call it, it does not help establish notability. An NYT op-ed does not give someone notability. Remember anyone can submit an op-ed to the New York Times. Sure your chances of getting it published are better if you are well-known. However, there have also been some op-eds by relatively unknown people.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Anybody can submit their own name to win a Nobel Prize, but only notable people win one. I did not argue it gives him notability, I said it added to his notability. --RAN (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Baby miss  fortune 04:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Amato was in the local distribution area of the NYT, so coverage of him is an example of local coverage. Nothing shows that he rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is making the claim that he derives his notability solely from the NYT. He gets it by fulfilling WP:GNG. If you think the New York Times is unreliable for notability for people that live within the New York Metropolitan area, please start a thread at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --RAN (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Credible claim of notability as the directly elected county executive of a county which had 850,000 residents -- 50% more than the number represented by a congressman and four times that of a state senator or member of the assembly -- with the reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish the claim. While the nominator has apparently made a superficial attempt to read the article, WP:BEFORE mandates a far more thorough review of potential sources available outside of the article that might establish notability, a step that the nominator has failed to perform. Per WP:BEFORE, "A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines; B. Carry out these checks; C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted; and, D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" It seems that all four mandated steps have not been followed here. Alansohn (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "While the nominator has apparently made a superficial attempt to read the article" I guess that was meant to insult me, but lol, where do you come up with this stuff? Do you even take yourself seriously?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With the close of your mass weather nominations, you are currently under 50% on your selections for deletion, so maybe you should listen to someone who has good advice for you. Unscintillating (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone is keeping score, I'm not. However, I'm fairly certain your statistic is made up. But let's try to keep the discussion relevant for a change.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is "us"? How was your "lol" relevant?  Unscintillating (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The NYT of this timeperiod only has about 5 obits per day so is selective on a national basis and is not local and not routine coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep As per the nomination, there are very routine sources that cover the topic.  There is no difference between "very routine sources" and "sources", since we are talking about sources with in-depth coverage, such as the NYT source that states that the topic, "has been the only County Executive since the form of government was changed in 1978."  GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a difference, WP:BIO "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability"--Rusf10 (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No one knows what you mean by trivial coverage here. In fact, the context makes it appear that you are claiming that "has been the only County Executive since the form of government was changed in 1978" is an example of trivial coverage.  Suffice it to say that "trivial coverage" is a low bar such as someone's name appearing in a telephone book.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Allusions to WP:LOCAL to dismiss otherwise-WP:RS is not conforming to that essay, and dismissing the New York Times's coverage as "local" is rather provincial in attitude. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman's argument, no one mentioned WP:LOCAL, that's about places not people.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You've apparently missed the statement above "...coverage of him is an example of local coverage..." which is an allusion to WP:LOCAL. You're absolutely correct that said essay is about places and therefore attempting to explain away WP:GNG coverage is incorrect.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was talking about routine local news coverage of a person. WP:GNG talks about "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That is what I was alluding to, he gets trivial mentions in most of the sources. Just because I used the word "local", it doesn't mean that it has anything to do with WP:LOCAL, so don't bring something irrelevant into the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You aren't the only person in this discussion and the statement you object to had nothing to do with anything you said. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're actually right, I didn't use the word local (and I thought I had), but I still don't see how the mere mention of the word local alludes to WP:LOCAL.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 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.