Deletion of Thomas J. Lynch Jr.

Comment: Yet another in a series of problematic nominations from an editor who fails to read articles or understand Wikipedia:Deletion policy,  or . Of the four articles Rusf10 targeted for mass deletion, two are for individuals who had served in the New Jersey General Assembly, including Joseph C. Irwin (listed here) and the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles H. Boud for which Rusf10 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_H._Boud&action=history "accidentally nominated wrong article". For the other two articles, Rusf10 has been repeatedly admonished to consider alternatives to deletion and has persistently refused to do so. Both of the articles for non-Assembly members -- Ray Kramer and Thomas J. Lynch Jr. -- should have been considered for merge / redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors per policy, which Rusf10 stubbornly refuses to comply, and for which the nominator offers no explanation for refusing to consider the option to comply with Wikipedia:Deletion policy,  or , an approach that would have been supported by the overwhelming majority of editors. As stated in the header of this and every other AfD, and as ignored here, '''"When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article could be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why."'''{{pb}}Two of the articles never should have been considered for deletion and the other two should default to merge / redirect. Rusf10 is zero for four here. |Competence is required in Wikipedia, particularly in matters of deletion; Rusf10 has demonstrated a fundamental lack of competence here. After a speedy keep, the nominator should spend the requisite time to review and demonstrate a meaningful understanding of Wikipedia policy before any further such nominations and the disruption they cause
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE||WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE||WP:CIR)

Comment: position is apparently not inherently notable, and there's insufficient coverage of him in the media.  Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Lynch and Kramer; I would have been a keep on Irwin because of the state legislature, but he's already been withdrawn. County freeholder is not a position that confers an automatic notability freebie on every person who's ever held it, but these articles are not sourced well enough to get them over  #2 as the subject of significant press coverage.Please note, as well, that not everybody has equal access to all of the same possible resources to determine whether better sourcing is available or not — please read , "be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." So arguments to the nominator's ''competence'' are to cease immediately — keep your arguments one way or the other on the matter of whether improved sourcing can be found or not. It's not enough to argue that adequate sourcing ''might'' exist: the existence of adequate sourcing needs to be ''shown'', not merely theorized as possible, before "GNG is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily on what's already present in the article" is a valid keep rationale
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:ATTP)

Comment: Does not meet  or . I'm also seeing a pattern of "keep everything that has anything to do with NJ" from votes by AlanSohn, as pointed out previously by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:GNG)

Comment: Joseph C. Irwin article says he was a part of the state assembly. If anyone has Newspapers.com account could they clip this article. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/144714363/ From the OCR {{xt|Assemblyman Haydn Proctor, Brad- I ley Beach, and his Republican running mate, Joseph C. Irwin, in the face of nearly complete returns, were elected to the state assembly.}} The OCR usually messes some words up, best to read the actual paper if someone has access. That would pass  for him, but for the other two nothing as far as I can tell at the moment
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion policy and  both require *YOU*, as the nominator, to look for sources *BEFORE* you start a nomination; not to demand that other editors do your work for you. Are you saying that you searched for sources for both Kramer and Lynch and could not find a single source to confirm that either of them served as Freeholder Director of Monmouth County
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)