Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Fields

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 and redirect to List of sheriffs of Monmouth County, New Jersey. Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Fields

Theodore Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

County sheriff and county freeholder, neither of which gives an automatic pass of

• Comment Contingent on outcome of discussion at Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey as to whether or not subsection Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriffs should be split to stand-alone article. this nomination-decision should postponed/re-listed. Djflem (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The cited source is a Cyclopedia and gives him substantial coverage. This establishes his notability. Keep. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To pass GNG, you need to have multiple sources, not just one.--

Rusf10 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

You are mistaken. An entry in an established encyclopedia is all that's needed to establish notability. If a subject is already covered in an enecyclopedia we assume it is notable and that sources exist to support notability. And of coirse, it's not the only source covering this individual. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I am afraid you are mistaken. The full name of the book in question is "Biographical and portrait cyclopedia of the Third congressional district of New Jersey," that's a very specific title for a book. It's not like we're talking about Encyclopedia Britannica here.--

Rusf10 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete As noted by nom this fails
  WP:POLOUTCOMES as a municipal officeholder. Therefore, subject needs to pass GNG. Currently only one source is in article, and a BEFORE fails to find others in RS, which indicates a GNG failure. Chetsford (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

For the record, I also oppose a merge or redirect. The section of

Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey to which the merge/redirect is proposed is an entirely unsourced section. And a section composed of an exhaustive list of sheriffs is out of format for most of our county articles. Ergo, it's only a matter of time before the target of the redirect itself gets deleted. Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit - there's some kind of backstory here that's too much for me to get into right now with a level of thoroughness that would be fair to all sides. I withdraw participation in this AfD. Chetsford (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not meet
  WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. County freeholder is not an office that confers an automatic
  Encyclopedia Brittanica or a national dictionary of biographies would certainly count for something, but a local "encyclopedia" is not automatically enough. The entry would have to be in an encyclopedia that is itself notable and widely recognized enough for us to have an article about the encyclopedia, not just in any random book that calls itself an encyclopedia. Every single person who ever held any office at the municipal or county levels anywhere could always be sourced to one blurb in a purely local directory of local officeholders — so if that were enough for a keep in and of itself, we'd have to keep an article about everybody who ever served at that level of office. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors Djflem (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge / Redirect to
  WP:BEFORE and WP:deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion all specify that options to deletion should be considered. There is content here that could be merged and at a minimum redirected to the proposed target.

  As stated in the header of this (and every other) AfD: "When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why." Alansohn (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. There is a place in the format of both
    List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors for information to be inserted.Djflem (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]