1071:- Just to recap, the following are the sources we have in the artilce: 1. Obituary 2. An article in the town newspaper 3. an obituary, this time from the funeral home 4. marriage records 5. A historical document from the local library 6. An article written for the local college magazine 7. A NYT article about a shooting that doesn't even mention Eleanore Kieliszek And for all the talk we had about the New York Times above, I can't actually find a New York Times obituary for Eleanore Kieliszek, so I don't know why it was assumed she had one. Of the articles I can find in the New York Times, none of them have more than a passing mention or a few quotes from Eleanore Kieliszek. So the whole is the NYT a local source or not argument is actually irrelevant.--
707:
multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I'd have to believe that there would be significant coverage of the person while he or she was still alive in order to be notable. Very few people gain notability upon their death. There are plenty of obituaries written about non-notable people.--
878:-- as you have apparently never done -- you would have found these ample sources and either accepted that the article met the notability standard or you would have added the sources you had found to the article. That you have refused to do so and have failed to distinguish between notable and non-notable articles only undermines your credibility.
1033:
fifth with three sources? Your claim that the topic has no national or international significance is not sourced with evidence. Whether you are right or you are wrong, it is not a GNG concept.As for obituaries, GNG is fine with obituaries, especially those in the NYT, which are generally considered strong evidence of notability.
1032:
Your statement at the previous AfD had another sentence, (emphasis not included) "Lack of sources is not the issue, its notability. Yes, there is plenty of local press coverage here." How have I mistaken the context when you've nominated four of those five articles for deletion, and redirected the
1017:
First of all, don't take my quote out of context, that was a blanket statement on all of the articles, not specifically this one. Local sources are expected to cover towns events, mayors, etc. that would be important to the local community but has no national or international significance. Third, a
706:
I'm not saying the obituary is unreliable (although the NYT sometimes is and that is a topic for another discussion), I was just frustrated with his attitude and condescending tone. To answer your question, the guideline is "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in
579:
completely miss the concept of notability. News isn't notable, and news coverage isn't more or less "notable" depending where in the newspaper it appears (except the gossip and op-ed pages). On
Knowledge (XXG), subjects of articles are notable, and that has to do with coverage by reliable sources.
873:
So, in addition to broad coverage in newspapers, she's also a major subject in a book. Rusf10, as an editor who is an utter non-contributor (the overwhelming majority of your last 500+ edits are all related to deletionism), it's hard to take your evaluations of sources seriously, as you have no
993:, (emphasis removed), "Yes, there is plenty of local press coverage here." GNG has no definition for "local source". Further, the nom understands that there is a suitable redirect target, which means that notability is not a rationale for deletion, yet the nomination
603:
The subject does not inherit notability from the newspaper that publishes an article. Not everything the Times publishes is notable. If they do a story on a high school football game in the sports section, that does not make the quarterback in that game
858:
So, they chose her to be mayor as someone who would not be controversial (ie. somebody that everybody likes). How does that make her notable? I will ask again, what role did she have in the shooting incident or even the investigation of the
531:
I still do not know what you mean by "attendant publicity". Yes, the New York Times is a well known newspaper around the world, but it does have a local section. If you notice at the top of the referenced article, it says
907:
169:
687:
You are confusing reliability with infallibility, they are not synonyms. What makes a news source reliable is that they acknowledge and correct mistakes. The GNG makes no mention of any obituary exclusion rule.
829:
The sources in the article and those about her in other sources all address her notability. See these details about her being selected deliberately as mayor in the wake of the
Pannell shooting in the book
967:
I have no idea what you're talking about here. The AFD notice has been posted on the article since the beginning. The sole reason I withdrew the first nomination was because of objections to bundling the
990:
942:
240:
204:
notability. Mayor of town of about 40,000 is not notable. Only sources are local newspaper and article about police shooting incident which she did not have involvement in (and is not even mentioned).
588:. And like all newspapers that are more than one page, they cover national news in the "National" section, world news in the "International" section, and yes, local news in the "Metro" section.—
561:
You completely missed the point. The New York Times has international coverage, national coverage, and local/regional coverage. The local coverage is much less notable than the others.--
383:
Being the first woman mayor
Teaneck (not the country, not the state) is not notable. If it were then we would have articles for the first female mayor of every city in the world.--
122:
360:
I know the nom is eager to delete articles about New Jersey mayors, but she/he should take the time to read each article before nominating it. Maybe being mayor of
Teaneck is not
318:
261:
163:
280:
892:
What undermines your credibility is you can't answer my question. She is not a major subject of that book, she gets a few mentions (that is 11, in a 500+ page book).--
222:
THe local sources just are not enough to show notability. Nothing about
Teaneck gives the mayor default notability, and the sources do not rise above routine coverage.
299:
753:. Aside from being the first female mayor of a major NYC suburb, Kieliszek and her town were the subjects of regional and national attention in the aftermath of the
337:
397:
Please read more carefully. I didn't write that being the first woman mayor of
Teaneck made her notable. I wrote that the attendant publicity made her notable. —
653:. Why didn't they write articles on her while she still was alive??? Your bias here is obvious and I don't really need to keep responding to personal attacks.--
630:
wrote about it. (You really ought to quit instead of repeatedly demonstrating that you jumped into the deep end of the pool without knowing how to swim.) —
546:
Where should they have put it? On the "International/World" page, with news from Paris, London, and
Jerusalem? Get off your high horse and be realistic. —
645:
I'm done with you! You obviously think the New York Times = "The word of God". If the NYT was such an infallible source, we wouldn't have this article:
945:, nominator stated, "I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mayors of Teaneck who are not notable for any other reason:..."
129:
693:
248:
95:
90:
649:. But I'm not even trying to make that point, I just saying that it is possible that a obituary doesn't give notability. GNG says you need
99:
728:. NN mayor. There is no assertion of notability in the article. There are refs but they substantiate that she lived a very humdrum life.
949:". However, no AfD or other notice was posted on the article, and when the nominator withdrew, no notice was posted on the talk page.
874:
evident ability to identify sources the way editors who contribute to this encyclopedia do. If you had performed your obligations under
801:
746:
689:
636:
594:
552:
512:
475:
442:
403:
370:
244:
82:
17:
754:
184:
151:
412:
So the first female mayor of every small town that receives a write up in the local press is notable...so all of them then...
364:
sufficient to make a person notable, but being the first woman to serve as mayor, and the attendant publicity, usually is. —
646:
1099:
998:
40:
1018:
close look at these sources reveals that most are obituaries. Even the most unnotable people still have obituaries.--
626:
they reported on a high school football game, it would be a notable game—if for no other reason than the fact that
145:
1038:
1006:
954:
227:
427:
1080:
1063:
1042:
1027:
1010:
977:
958:
923:
901:
887:
868:
849:
821:
784:
766:
737:
716:
697:
662:
640:
613:
598:
570:
556:
541:
516:
497:
479:
460:
446:
421:
407:
392:
374:
349:
329:
310:
291:
272:
252:
231:
213:
64:
994:
831:
141:
837:
345:
805:
86:
191:
1095:
1059:
797:
750:
631:
589:
547:
507:
470:
437:
398:
365:
36:
1034:
1002:
950:
918:
816:
223:
485:
585:
177:
875:
883:
845:
432:
341:
1054:. She really doesn't seem to pass as easily as some here may think, but I think she does pass.
157:
946:
762:
322:
303:
284:
265:
78:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1094:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
775:
She became mayor several months after the shooting. What role did she have in the incident?--
201:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1076:
1055:
1023:
973:
897:
864:
780:
712:
658:
609:
566:
537:
388:
209:
757:. On a side note, I guarantee she lived a much less "humdrum life" than any of us on here.
503:
912:
810:
733:
493:
456:
417:
55:
804:. The article is well developed, with enough reliable third party coverage to confirm
879:
841:
758:
116:
1072:
1019:
969:
893:
860:
776:
708:
654:
605:
562:
533:
384:
205:
729:
489:
452:
413:
584:
is as good as it gets in the United States in terms of the press; it's the
469:
moronic. When I call somebody a moron, there's no doubt about it. —
991:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mayors of
Teaneck, New Jersey
943:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mayors of
Teaneck, New Jersey
241:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mayors of
Teaneck, New Jersey
1088:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
908:
WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
451:
Looks like you are calling me a moron. Which is abusive.
112:
108:
104:
176:
190:
745:- Agree with the excellent points already made by
502:Your argument can file a complaint against me at
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1102:). No further edits should be made to this page.
319:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
262:list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions
281:list of New York-related deletion discussions
8:
336:Note: This debate has been included in the
317:Note: This debate has been included in the
298:Note: This debate has been included in the
279:Note: This debate has been included in the
260:Note: This debate has been included in the
300:list of People-related deletion discussions
465:Please read more carefully. I called your
338:list of Women-related deletion discussions
335:
316:
297:
278:
259:
622:to make a remark like that. Trust me,
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
989:As per the nominator's statement at
24:
755:Phillip Pannell shooting incident
802:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
1081:20:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
1064:21:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
1043:20:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
1028:19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
1011:19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
978:19:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
959:19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
924:20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
902:18:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
888:17:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
869:22:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
850:19:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
822:19:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
785:04:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
767:02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
738:16:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
717:00:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
698:00:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
663:00:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
641:00:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
614:19:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
599:05:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
571:04:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
557:04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
542:04:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
517:17:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
498:17:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
480:17:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
461:16:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
447:16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
436:become "the local press"?) —
426:What a moronic argument. See
422:16:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
408:05:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
393:02:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
375:02:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
350:00:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
65:22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
647:New York Times controversies
330:20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
311:20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
292:20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
273:20:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
253:19:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
232:19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
214:18:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
1119:
618:You must never have read
1091:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
651:significant coverage
586:newspaper of record
628:The New York Times
620:The New York Times
582:The New York Times
433:The New York Times
947:Eleanor Kieliszek
580:Being covered in
352:
332:
313:
294:
275:
224:John Pack Lambert
79:Eleanor Kieliszek
71:Eleanor Kieliszek
63:
1110:
1093:
921:
915:
819:
813:
532:"N.Y./Region".--
484:Which is rude -
430:. (And when did
327:
308:
289:
270:
239:See argument at
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1100:deletion review
1089:
1035:Unscintillating
1003:Unscintillating
951:Unscintillating
919:
913:
817:
811:
639:
597:
555:
515:
478:
445:
428:WP:ALLORNOTHING
406:
373:
323:
304:
285:
266:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1116:
1114:
1105:
1104:
1084:
1083:
1066:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1014:
1013:
983:
982:
981:
980:
962:
961:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
853:
852:
824:
790:
789:
788:
787:
770:
769:
740:
722:
721:
720:
719:
701:
700:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
635:
593:
551:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
511:
474:
441:
402:
378:
377:
369:
354:
353:
333:
314:
295:
276:
256:
255:
234:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1115:
1103:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
985:
984:
979:
975:
971:
966:
965:
964:
963:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
937:
936:
925:
922:
917:
916:
909:
906:User:Rusf10,
905:
904:
903:
899:
895:
891:
890:
889:
885:
881:
877:
872:
871:
870:
866:
862:
857:
856:
855:
854:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
834:
828:
825:
823:
820:
815:
814:
807:
806:wp:notability
803:
799:
798:Malik Shabazz
795:
792:
791:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
751:Malik Shabazz
748:
744:
741:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
723:
718:
714:
710:
705:
704:
703:
702:
699:
695:
691:
686:
685:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
643:
642:
638:
633:
632:Malik Shabazz
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
602:
601:
600:
596:
591:
590:Malik Shabazz
587:
583:
578:
574:
573:
572:
568:
564:
560:
559:
558:
554:
549:
548:Malik Shabazz
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
530:
518:
514:
509:
508:Malik Shabazz
505:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
477:
472:
471:Malik Shabazz
468:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
450:
449:
448:
444:
439:
438:Malik Shabazz
435:
434:
429:
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
411:
410:
409:
405:
400:
399:Malik Shabazz
396:
395:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
372:
367:
366:Malik Shabazz
363:
359:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:Coolabahapple
339:
334:
331:
328:
326:
320:
315:
312:
309:
307:
301:
296:
293:
290:
288:
282:
277:
274:
271:
269:
263:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
235:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
217:
216:
215:
211:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1090:
1087:
1068:
1051:
986:
938:
911:
832:
826:
809:
793:
742:
725:
650:
627:
623:
619:
581:
576:
466:
431:
361:
357:
325:CAPTAIN RAJU
324:
306:CAPTAIN RAJU
305:
287:CAPTAIN RAJU
286:
268:CAPTAIN RAJU
267:
236:
219:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1056:Niteshift36
997:the policy
968:articles.--
859:incident?--
833:Color Lines
164:free images
914:Poeticbent
838:Mike Kelly
812:Poeticbent
604:notable.--
486:WP:UNCIVIL
58:Sandstein
1096:talk page
876:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1098:or in a
880:Alansohn
842:Alansohn
467:argument
123:View log
39:or in a
1069:Comment
995:ignores
939:Comment
759:Scanlan
202:WP:NPOL
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1073:Rusf10
1020:Rusf10
999:WP:ATD
970:Rusf10
894:Rusf10
861:Rusf10
777:Rusf10
726:Delete
709:Rusf10
655:Rusf10
606:Rusf10
563:Rusf10
534:Rusf10
504:WP:ANI
385:Rusf10
362:per se
220:Delete
206:Rusf10
200:fails
142:Google
100:delete
730:Szzuk
637:Stalk
595:Stalk
553:Stalk
513:Stalk
490:Szzuk
476:Stalk
453:Szzuk
443:Stalk
414:Szzuk
404:Stalk
371:Stalk
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1077:talk
1060:talk
1052:Keep
1039:talk
1024:talk
1007:talk
987:Keep
974:talk
955:talk
920:talk
898:talk
884:talk
865:talk
846:talk
827:Keep
818:talk
800:and
796:per
794:Keep
781:talk
763:talk
749:and
743:Keep
734:talk
713:talk
694:talk
659:talk
610:talk
575:No,
567:talk
538:talk
506:. —
494:talk
457:talk
418:talk
389:talk
358:Keep
346:talk
249:talk
243:. --
237:Keep
228:talk
210:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
50:keep
1001:.
941:At
836:by
747:RAN
690:RAN
577:you
245:RAN
192:TWL
121:– (
1079:)
1062:)
1041:)
1026:)
1009:)
976:)
957:)
910:.
900:)
886:)
867:)
848:)
840:.
808:.
783:)
765:)
736:)
715:)
696:)
688:--
661:)
624:if
612:)
569:)
540:)
496:)
488:.
459:)
420:)
391:)
348:)
340:.
321:.
302:.
283:.
264:.
251:)
230:)
212:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
1075:(
1058:(
1037:(
1022:(
1005:(
972:(
953:(
896:(
882:(
863:(
844:(
779:(
761:(
732:(
711:(
692:(
657:(
634:/
608:(
592:/
565:(
550:/
536:(
510:/
492:(
473:/
455:(
440:/
416:(
401:/
387:(
368:/
344:(
247:(
226:(
208:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.