Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Finnerty (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Mwelch, 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Notability)