Deletion of Frank Finnerty (2nd nomination)

Comment: Orange County officials are utterly irrelevant and set no precedent, whether they exist or do not per . The article has been improved, as requested. I've sat down and done the research to add multiple, independent, reliable sources. Why are you still fighting the last AfD, and not addressing the notability of this article, as it exists. I make no claim of a personal vendetta; I simply state that the article meets all relevant criteria of notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)

Comment: Hmm.  I'm not sure against whom I'm being accused of harboring a personal bias.  You?  Mr. Finnerty?  I'm sure each of you is a fine individual, and I don't know either of you, nor know enough ''about'' either of you to have any basis whatsoever for harboring a personal bias against either of you.  I know nothing of Mr. Finnerty, and my impression of you is that you're a perfectly reasonable and intelligent person exercising genuine good faith, and with whom I just happen to have an honest difference of opinion on this matter.  No big deal.  And I also do express my opinion merely on a "whim".  But I would agree that your dissatisfaction seems to be with the whole AfD process, as it is structured, more than anything else.   is ''not'' defined as a policy.  It is a guideline. By definition, it is intended to be used as a guide, but also to be tempered by editors' judgment with the full expectation that there will be exceptions, and that when the resepctive judgments of different editors about those guidelines conflict with one another, it is consensus that will decide which way carries the day.  That is why, with regard to the "bargain", I said at the outset that as far as ''I'' was concerned, I'd want to see more sources than just ''The Press of Atlantic City'' &mdash; that was and is my judgment.   are the only things firm around here.  Everthing else is flexible ''by design''.  I am generally guided by .  In general, my AfD opinions will fall along  lines.  But neither I, nor anyone else, is absolutely ''bound'' by it when declaring an AfD opinion. And I ''especially'' will not be bound by it when I know full well that, as I mentioned above, there is a strong and frequently expressed editorial sentiment (that a single local newspaper is not ''always'' enough) coming from many others beside myself, even if that sentiment hasn't been expressly codified in the guideline.  I'd suggest (and I mean suggest respectfully, not antagonistically) that if you're already convinced that ''despite'' the fact that the strict letter of  is more aligned with your position than ours, you ''still'' expect the majority of editors to vote to delete, perhaps that is a sign that at some level, even you yourself have sensed that that sentiment ''is'' the general consensus of Wikipedia editors, even though it hasn't been codified of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:FIVE||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: I won't try to speak to the nominator's motives but the bottom line is that this article currently cites exactly zero non-trivial reliable sources about this man.  I Googled his name and I saw exactly zero non-trivial reliable sources (plenty of mentions on various partisan web pages, as well as other trivial mentions amounting to littler more than stating his name an office, but nothing both non-trivial and ) in the first couple of pages of results.  I checked on him at newslibrary.com and saw exactly zero mentions of him outside of a single paper: ''The Press of Atlantic City'' (and even in that paper, I recall only two or three articles in which mention of him is non-trivial).  This seems to indicate to me that his notability, such as it is, is entirely local.  I'll add the caveat that I didn't spend copious amounts of time looking through the Google and Newslibrary results, so it's entirely possible that I might have missed something, or there might have been something beyond those first couple of pages of each, which does better establish his notability.  But the point is that neither I nor any other reader should ''have'' to dig for the sources establishing his notability.  The burden of proof of notability is on those who want to keep.  If those folks would care to find and cite the non-trivial reliable source coverage of him (preferably from more than just ''The Press of Atlantic City''), then I think that would pretty much end the attempts to delete the article.  Without such sources being cited, the deletion nomination is entirely understandable within the assumption of good faith
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: hopefully the last thing I'll have to say.  When Alansohn asks, "Why we do we bother wasting our time defining explicit policies if they will simply be ignored when inconvenient?", the first reaction should be  isn't explicit policy.  It's a guideline.  Furthermore, IMHO, my opinion ''is'' backed up by , since I don't feel an Atlantic City newspaper talking about an Atlantic County freeholder qualifies as ''significant'' press coverage.  Can I show you a specific guideline that says it isn't?  No.  Can you show me one that says it is?  No.  It's just our individual interpretation of the word significant
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)