Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Botti


 * 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 delete. BLP1E is policy and has not been refuted Spartaz Humbug! 15:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Robert C. Botti

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non-notable mayor, see WP:NPOL Rusf10 (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, quite surprisingly, this person seemingly passes GNG. He was the subject of an extensive write-up in the New York Times back in 1982 when he was indicted for corruption seven weeks after taking office, as can be seen here:. Combined with the other New York Times ref already in the article, where he receives a couple of paragraphs of coverage, this person passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep passed GNG or merge to William Musto, his predecssor where it this would waarent mention.Djflem (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Union City NJ is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist — so I have to judge this against WP:PERP on the corruption charges, not WP:NPOL on the seven weeks he served as mayor before being arrested. But under PERP, a person who was not already notable enough for an article before being charged with or convicted of a crime does not automatically clear the bar just because you can show a brief blip of WP:BLP1E coverage in the crime context specifically — to make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article on those grounds, it would have to be demonstrated that his crime was of enduring encyclopedic significance that would get him over the ten year test. But there's little apparent evidence of that — the sources in the article that are dated a decade or more later than his term as mayor both just glancingly namecheck his existence, but are not about him strongly enough to count as GNG-passing coverage of him, so all we've got for coverage that's actually about him in any non-trivial way is that initial BLP1E blip. Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would dispute your analysis of the 2009 New York Times source. It does not just briefly name check his existence, it provides two paragraphs of coverage and therefore SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And even if we accepted that analysis, it would still require quite a lot more than just two paragraphs in one news article to claim that he passed GNG on media coverage. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who has two": even just on number alone it requires a lot more than just two or three sources, and it still also tests those sources for their depth and their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat's very insightful analysis of the issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - My own google search turned up nothing useful, and I see nothing useful on the article or here. Bearcat's analysis is correct. Delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2020 (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.