Deletion of Frank Finnerty (2nd nomination)

Comment: This is the third attempt to delete this article, the first a no consensus, and the most recent a keep. This is indeed the nominator's second attempt at deleting this article, aimed at overturning the previous consensus. I would |assume good faith, but the nominator has already demonstrated an extreme lack of constructive dialog by describing edits to the article with the bad-faith statement that "Spamming a list of committees he serves on for the board is impressive
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: The Orange County, CA metro area is even larger, and articles about local politicians from that area have been deleted for not having notability outside the local coverage area.  has this to say about politicians: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Atlantic County, NJ does not meet that guideline, just as Allegheny County, PA or Monongalia County, WV would fail, as well. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This is the sticking point. He has received ''virtually no press coverage outside of his local area''. That shows a distinct lack of notability. "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." That speaks for itself
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: The Atlantic City metro area is a rather large one. The  source is reliable. Wikiepdia policy requires multiple sources, not multiple publications. If you believe this to be Wikiepdia policy you have to do a much better job of demonstrating the claim. Other than your arbitrary and invalid claim requiring coverage in multiple publications, the article stands as notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This isn't a courtroom; there's no burden of proof.  There's |consensus. All the sources added are from the local newspaper.  While it's true that Jimbo once said Wikipedia is intended to be the "sum of all human knowledge", he lied.  It's an encyclopedia, and some stuff just doesn't make the cut.  I know that there's a swingset in the backyard of my childhood home, but no one cares.   is purposely written so that not all local politicians are notable, and Frank Finnerty isn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CON||WP:BIO)

Comment: Nothing.  So probably best to stop trying.  Everyone who has contributed to this debate is firmly entrenched in their position, so there is very little point in the already-involved editors continuing to argue with one another.  This is not the first time this issue has come up.  The "what if references are in some local paper only" question has come up in a myriad of AfD debates.  There has long been a strong sentiment that that is often not enough.  But no one has yet found a satisfactory way to codify that sentiment into  such that the specific wording of the sentiment 1) garners a general consensus, 2) is written so that the standard for when other papers are required is not subjective and 3) wouldn't result in obviously notable articles winding up in AfD just because they are sourced by, say, an investigation run solely by the ''New York Times''.  So, no, you will not find this "local only is sometimes not good enough" sentiment codified in .  We all admit that, OK?  That is granted.  That fact does not automatically invalidate the sentiment, however.  m:Inclusionism|Inclusionists often weigh in on AfD debates and voice a "keep" opinion even as they acknowledge happily that the subject comes nowhere near meeting .  They do this because they don't ''care'' what  says and are happy to tell you so.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  That is their opinion.  It simply gets contributed to the whole debate like everyone else's and then we see where the consensus in that debate turns out.  If that inclusionist sentiment proves to be the consensus on a particular AFD candidate, then it will be kept, even if it doesn't technically meet .  I, and obviously others, feel this is a case where "local paper only" notability is not sufficient.  Clearly, you disagree.  And we all grant that the ''letter'' of  doesn't specifically back our position.  OK?  These points are all made and made and made again in the above.  So whatever ''new'' editors (if they have the patience to actually wade through all of the above &mdash; no small feat) who now come upon this debate can see all of the arguments now, decide in which camp their personal opinion falls, and then vote accordingly. You have done an ''excellent'' and commendable job of taking an article that had originally ''no'' defense of its notability (zero cited sources) and at least giving it a defensible position (multiple reliable source mentions, albeit all from a single newspaper).  Sincere kudos on doing that. Some (like you) will feel that's good enough; others (like me) won't.  The AfD process is a recognition of the fact that these difference of opinion are inevitable.  That's why the whole point is to take in the full consensus of editors.  If enough editors agree with you that the strict letter of  is what should carry the day, then that will be the consensus. If not, it won't.  And since this is not a strict numerical vote, but rather a discussion in which the closing admin will consider the strength of the respective arguments in deciding the consensus, then the fact that the letter of  backs your position may weigh to your advantage there, also. And that's fine.  If that admin says something like, "After discounting the "delete" votes because their reasoning isn't backed by the letter of , the consensus is '''keep'''.", then I can certainly live with that.  But in any event, there's no need for everybody to keep saying the same things over and over again here
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: I still can't find this does it play in "Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford. et. al." standard. What is the factual basis of your claim that ''The Press of Atlantic City'' is not a |reliable and |Verifiable source? I can't possibly rebut claims that have no factual basis. Please refer to some valid Wikipedia policy. The issues you raised have been addressed. Address the article as it stands
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: The Keep you're putting out there was a discussion that focused almost entirely on how quickly the article was renominated, not on the merits of the article itself. Any editor could have put this article up for AfD again. It just happened to be me. The flaws are still there. It's still an article of only local interest. There's nothing there that shows he's been noticed in Trenton, Princeton, East Rutherford, et. al.  would suggest that this alone could warrant deletion. If the other AfDs had never happened at all, this is still a flawed article that does not meet those guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: A search on newslibrary.com using '''"frank finnerty" freeholder''' as search terms found 192 sources, with substantially more than 2 or 3 non-trivial mentions. As requested, sources have been added to support the biographical information using multiple, non-trivial |reliable and |verifiable sources to demonstrate |notability. The burden of proof has been met
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: When it is virtually the ''only'' source, it does not rise to the level of notability expected of . The only news items outside of the Atlantic City metro area were buried in the bottom of the search. The source isn't invalid, but it ''is'' insufficient
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: you've made my point for me, which is that he has not received any coverage ''anywhere else''. That would fall under the "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." guideline of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: You haven't helped at all, nor do you demonstrate an understanding of either  or the  policy. Mr. Finnerty has been mentioned in hundreds of articles. The nine sources selected are all articles where Finnerty is the primary subject. These are not mere mentions. What you have done is misinterpreted and subverted a rather clear policy as an excuse for deletion of an article where  has been established rather explicitly. It is only through denying the existence of a clear Wikipedia policy that such notability is being denied. As has becoming tradition, where policy is in clear contradiction to a poorly thought out and unjustified vote, the strategy is to deny it applies or to claim that it means something completely different
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:N)