Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul J. Feiner (2nd nomination)

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. Geschichte (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Feiner

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Town Supervisor" does not meet WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 17:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his position fails WP:NPOL and while there are a couple New York Times articles which discuss him they are in the local section, so he hasn't received coverage from outside his small jurisdiction. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Town supervisors do not get an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL just for existing, being an unsuccessful candidate for higher office is not a notability clincher either, and the article is not referenced well enough to make him more special than the norm. Our inclusion standards for local politicians have been tightened up considerably even since 2015, so the fact that the first discussion was a de facto keep by withdrawal is not definitive. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Town supervisor is not enough for WP:NPOL on its own, but he has received a fair amount of coverage in the press, including being on the receiving end of some anti-semitic hate speech [1] Spudlace (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being victimized by hate speech, as unfortunate as it is, is not in and of itself a notability clincher for a politician in an otherwise non-notable role. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a town supervisor does not make someone notable, nor does being a victim of hate speech.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't mean NPOL, but he does meet GNG which NPOL says that minor officials are notable if they meet the GNG [2] [3] [4] Spudlace (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you provided is the closest to satisfying WP:GNG. The second source is not directly about him and only includes a trivial mention. The third is just a run-of-the-mill local news story that any local politician could get. The WP:GNG case is not strong here. KidAd talk 03:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of some media coverage in a county politician's own local media market is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG pass that would exempt him from having to pass WP:NPOL — every county or municipal politician in every town or city or county that has media will always get media coverage, because covering local politics is local media's job. At the local level, a county politician's coverage has to nationalize in such a way that would make him significantly more notable than the norm, not just demonstrate that he exists as a person with a job. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.