Deletion of Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico

Comment: the question of inclusion in this AfD is not really relevant as all fail |General Notability Guidelines and |notability criteria for politicians and judges. I see only pedantic arguments that DeGise has a different title but largely similar function. There are no arguments that his article should be kept on its merits so running another AfD would be a waste of time. -- Wow! A situation that  was ''actually'' designed for
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NPOL||WP:IAR)

Comment: all. Refactoring comment as I misunderstood: DeGise was never the mayor of Jersey City, he just ran and lost. But being county executive is ''not'' an automatic notability boost, over and above anybody else on the freeholder board, in the ''absence'' of enough |reliable source coverage about him to clear , and neither is having been a ''city councillor'' in Jersey City — but the sourcing for him isn't notably better than it is for any of the others (it's actually ''weaker'' than some of them.) The only evidence I see of "nationalized" coverage here is a single article from ''The New York Times'' — but that article isn't about DeGise, but rather merely namechecks his existence in coverage ''about'' the guy DeGise ''lost'' to in the mayoral race. And in the context of ''Jersey City'', it represents ''local'' coverage within the NYT's ''local'' coverage area — but when a person's notability claim falls under one of those subject areas where we require nationalized rather than purely local coverage, such as city councillors and county executives, then they do ''not'' get a free notability boost ''just'' because they happen live in the NYC Metro and so their local coverage happens to be in ''The New York Times'' instead of ''The Palookaville Herald''. It still represents ''local'' coverage, not wider coverage that inherently makes them ''more'' notable than other people who hold the same job, and get the same amount of local coverage, further away from New York City. And none of the others have any strong or well-sourced claim of notability at all either. To get over , an officeholder at the ''county'' level of office has to show the substance and sourcing to support a credible claim that they're ''more'' notable than most other people at the same level — and that still holds true ''regardless'' of whether they were just a regular freeholder or an executive
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:NPOL)

Comment: except for DeGise in this nomination (note this would be a procedural keep for DeGise). After a search for each nominee, the remaining subjects are county legislators and have only received local coverage of their work. Our precedents (per ) is that local politicians must receive "national or international press coverage beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role."  The problem I have with  is that a tendency exists to address entire categories of subjects without evaluating whether any subject may "a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits" (). (In addition, nominating more than one subject for deletion limits the ease of searching for information about each subject). In the present case, DeGise is a county executive, and not just a county freeholder. I do think that a county executive is more akin to a mayor because of their executive authority and should similarly be evaluated on its own merit (which is different than the usual outcomes of county legislators). Because of that, DeGise should have been nominated individually
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:BUNDLE||WP:MULTIAFD)