Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff

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. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elbert Adrian Brinckerhoff

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. being a mayor of small town does not guarantee notability. coverage only merely confirms existence or covers namesakes who lived in different times. [1], [2]. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a hand wave to WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN can you point out specifically what point it fails? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lack of indepth coverage. coverage is very small and limited to mere verification of existence thus fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO in particular. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to appear snarky, but do you actually read any of the sources? I am not getting that impression. If the New York Times headline is "Brinckerhoff, Bank President, Dies. Head of Merchants Bank. Rode the First Pony Express in This Country. Member of the Vigilance Committee In California Under Coleman in Pioneer Days". and you write "being a mayor of small town does not guarantee notability. coverage only merely confirms existence" I am thinking that you are cutting and pasting your rationale into these AFDs without reading the article or reading the source material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there is no inherent notability in holding the posts mentioned in the article. I am thinking that you are cutting and pasting your rationale into these AFDs regarding WP:GNG or that it's in NY times so must be notable (maybe we can call it the Norton Rule. articles can and have been deleted with multiple sources. regards LibStar (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are kept or deleted based on !voting no matter how well sourced or poorly sourced. That is the nature of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and not because they pass the more than one source rule or the Norton NY times rules. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets every requirement for WP:GNG with an obituary in the New York Times as the reference in the article. "Being a mayor of small town does not guarantee notability" but having in an obituary in the New York Times is by definition being notable. Out of the maybe 6,000 people that die each day in the USA the New York Times has an obituary for maybe 3 or 4. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where is the notability criterion that states "an obituary in the New York Times is by definition being notable"? LibStar (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right here at WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where is the notability criterion that states "an obituary in the New York Times is by definition being notable"? LibStar (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right here (cut and pasted again) at WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." If you do not think the New York Times is a reliable source then work to have it blacklisted from Wikipedia. The logical construct is:

A. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
B. The New York Times is a reliable-source and the obituaries provide significant-coverage
C. Therefore having an obituary in the New York Times makes you notable for inclusion in Wikipedia "for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." QED --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so far the article merely confirms life details like birth, death, marriage and that he held a few posts. and source merely confirm these facts, not like there has been several indepth articles and books or chapters of books about him. coverage is lacking depth as per WP:BIO, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". so far only 2 sources confirm facts about him. but the usual it's in the NY Times so must be notable rule must apply! LibStar (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lesson in junior high school logic above, now a lesson in grammar school math: Two sources are multiple sources. Again for the third time: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There is no requirement for a book chapter in the definition, yet, he does have a chapter in a book. Once again, you have to actually read the source material. And clearly you have not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do not insult me with statements like "junior high school logic" do you need to be condescending to those you disagree with. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that condescending? I took a course in logic in Junior High School and that is where I learned Boolean logic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

great for Richard. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can have the New York Times blacklisted from Wikipedia because it is unreliable, then my logical construct would no longer be valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

again you are applying the Norton rule, an appearance in NY times does not guarantee automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources for someone who died a hundred years ago will inevitably be difficult to find. However the NYT obituary is a pretty solid sign of notability and there are at least two other books that discuss his life and work. Note that these are the sources that we get through a 30 seconds-long Google search so one has to assume that there are many more solid sources out there especially given his eventful life. (At the very least, there are primary sources confirming bits of content such as [3], [4] and sources whose coverage has less depth [5]) Pichpich (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's always much more problematic for these articles on people who died some time ago, however I think that the NYT obit is enough to swing it for me. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 13:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NY Times obit plus other sources is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sad to say, it appears the nominator did not investigate the subject fully. Hopefully they will block themselves for this disruptive nomination of this youtube star, i mean playboy model, oh i mean noted businessman who died 98 years ago with a million followers on twitter, oh i mean a full nytimes obit and other coverage. His business career is likely much more notable than his mayorship but we need not trifle over that since the subject is notable enough for coverage and the project is not improved by removing an article about Elbert Adrian Brinkeroff from existence.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow! I live in next-door Teaneck, and have been on Brinckerhoff Road in Englewood many times. Little did I know that he was not only mayor of that city but that he "delivered the first pony express package from San Francisco to Sacramento". Anyone with a claim of notability like that deserves a lot more notice, and the sources provided more than establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have never in the last 5 years not kept an article because of lack of notability when the was an NYTimes obit. Good reason: they are the accepted standard, and we just follow. I always find it amusing when we start saying we know better. The entire point of the GNG and RSs for notability is that we accept outside standards. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 25 October 2011 (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.