Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Jack Rosenthal

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. Shimeru 06:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Jack Rosenthal[edit]

Subject is non-notable local politician with two failed runs for office and some local scandal to his name. Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, so for this one it seems like there might actually be multiple sources. But with the references not being in-line and with such references as "review or articles from 1973-1977", it's tough to evaluate their merit. For this one, I'd suggest giving Billy Hathorn a chance to more clearly specifiy the references to allow for a more clear determination regarding notability. Given the track record, I am perhaps not optimistic that this will be done and actually establish notability, but just to be completely fair, I think the opportunity should be offered. If that doesn't happen, then delete. Mwelch 07:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ . '~~Weak Keep~~' there are technically enough sources. "Review of the ..." apparently means that it was examined for those dates, and an item or two actually found. Only the items found, of course are sources. This is like saying one searched Google. Google isn't a source, what one finds there are sources. I've edited the article accordingly. DGG 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Thanks for the info. I'm still troubled by what's actually listed for references, but if there was something there, then that adds to the case for notability. If the author is reading this, perhaps he can specify those for the reader? Of what's left, there are two sources seem definitely non-trivial: the link to his lawsuit against Oubre (that link wasn't working last night when I tried to check it, so I didn't know what that was), and the newspaper article about his pleading guilty. Not sure what might have been in that prison report (once again in-line citations would certainly be nice). Might have been non-trivial. A couple of other links listed don't seem to be working right now (not sure if that's a temporary situation or not), but maybe some non-trivial info there too if those links become operational. A lot of maybes, but when combined with the two definites already there, I guess that makes for "multiple" non-trivial sources. Mwelch 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. At least a personal interview with Billy wasn's used as an interview this time. He seems to have enough regional notability. Realkyhick 03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ He lost the race for mayor & legislature. I am an inclusionist about politicians, and think people losing races for national office are notable. Not state office. His crime also was nothing particularly dramatic.If kept, the article will of course be edited to an appropriate length and amount of detail. DGG 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I see I have !voted three different ways with 5 hours. I consider this to indicate not my carelessness, but rather the truly borderline nature of this subject. In borderline situations I think the general way of going is considered to be keep. as the article develops, or fails to develop, we can always discuss the article again. DGG 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would appeal to the Wikipedia editors to not delete this biography. As one who utilizes Wikipedia for research in the field of history and politics (especially localized), I find these biographies to be not only interesting, but invaluable. It is nearly impossible to find such comprehensive information anywhere else online, short of having to go to a library or newspapers in the locality to which the individual is from. Is it not Wikipedia's mission to provide such information ? It would be highly shortsighted to remove these biographies.

D.J. Jones -- 30 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs).

Actually, Billy, it is not WPs mission to produce articles about everybody interesting, or everything not covered by other online sources. A full encyclopedia of state politics might find a good home in Wikia. The standard is Notability to the reader. Some politicians are, some aren't. But you might find it easier to get articles or borderline figures like this guy accepted in WP if they were written more concisely. That isn't (at the moment) a specific guideline, but it's part of what is meant by being encyclopedic--an encyclopedia has articles whose length depends on the subjects' importance (and also of course of the amount of material, but this is never a problem with your articles). DGG 04:22, 2 April 2007 (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.