Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Breisacher

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Breisacher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local politician who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an obituary in a national paper such as the New York Times is generally considered proof of notability, especially for someone who died in 1934. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of notability is backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. Credit is due for the expansion of the article, with more on the way. Alansohn (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources would that be? This? AusLondonder (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing references used for notability and those used to source a fact. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to confuse given none of the references appear to prove notability. AusLondonder (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and more broadly fails WP:GNG. A single obituary does not equate to "significant coverage in reliable sources". Being a Mayor for a year and a post-master simply are not credible claims to significance. The other source from the New York Times is absurd. It is simply his name in a list of appointments of postmasters AusLondonder (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Given the time frame, I think I agree with RAN that the obituary in the NYT is a strong single source. The other, non-obituary, sources are weaker, but enough IMO. Hobit (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Altoona Tribune is also an obituary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've read WP:GNG, Hobit. I'm sure you're aware of the requirement for "significant coverage" rather than a mention after his death AusLondonder (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

significant coverage ≠ pre-mortem coverage. It "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." It doesn't care if the coverage is pre-mortem or post-mortem. If contemporary coverage is needed we have to delete the article on Ötzi and Cheddar Man.

I think it is significant coverage and considerably more than a mention. If we had another article with significant coverage (and ideally IMO, not another obituary) I'd say it's a clear keep given the time frame etc. Hobit (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN Wormcast (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bergenfield is less than ten miles west of Yonkers, so The New York Times represents local coverage in the local media — the local newspaper would be expected to publish an obituary of a former local mayor who had died, so that's just WP:ROUTINE. If the context in which a local media outlet is covering a person doesn't pass WP:NPOL in and of itself, then the distribution range of that local media outlet does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie — the places where the coverage is coming from, not the readership range of the local media, is what has to nationalize to get a person like this over the "more notable than the norm" hump. If an obituary had been published in a newspaper in Chicago, Seattle, Miami or Los Angeles, there'd be an inclusion case — but a smalltown political figure is not exempted from having to pass NPOL just because The New York Times happens to be his local newspaper. So no, nothing here is enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times in not a local paper, otherwise it would have the obituary of every mayor of the town he lived in and every other mayor of surrounding towns, which it does not. The New York Times is an international paper and does not print local obituaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling us George was an "international" figure now? I'm certain everyone in Nepal has heard of his legendary one-year term as Mayor of a small town in New Jersey. AusLondonder (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I love when people write "So you're telling us ..." I love the "Nepal standard" for what makes something international. I am going to use that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times most certainly would print obituaries of local notables. That's part of their job, as they are still a local newspaper with local coverage sections — but that fact does not instantly reify the obituary topics into national notables just because it's the NYT. If it did, we'd have to keep an article about every single food truck in Williamsburg that ever got reviewed by the NYT's restaurant critic — but we don't, because the NYT is still subject to the same test for the context of the coverage as any other newspaper is. If the NYT is acting locally, providing its local readership with local coverage of local things, then it doesn't count for more than any other newspaper doing that same thing. If the NYT were obiting a person who'd been the mayor of a small town in Wyoming, that could be evidence of greater notability because it's geographically removed from where WP:ROUTINE coverage would be expected to be found — but if they're obiting the mayor of a small town that's inside their own local coverage area, then that doesn't show nationalized interest. A smalltown mayor has to be substantively shown to be more notable than the norm for smalltown mayors, but "the local newspaper printed an obituary" is not the correct kind of more. Bearcat (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not established that the NYT would print obits of any local mayor besides this one. Where is the evidence to support either position? We need more than assertions. Alansohn's argument is just as logically persuasive as yours. If the NYT would not normally print an obit of a local mayor, then its inclusion here would be a clear mark of notability regardless of its local origin. If either position is so obvious, then it should be easy to support with external evidence. -- RM 03:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof rests on the extraordinary claim — local media, the world over, routinely and consistently publish obituaries of local figures when those local figures die, so the evidentiary burden would fall on the claim that The New York Times is not like other local media in that regard. It's Alansohn's responsibility to demonstrate that The New York Times would not normally publish obituaries of local mayors, and thus singled Breisacher out for special treatment above and beyond normal for some reason — but he hasn't shown proof of that, he's simply asserted it without proof. And no reason why Breisacher might have warranted being singled out as more notable than most other mayors of places in NYC's metropolitan area has actually been shown, either in this discussion or in the article, either. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Bearcat, the argument that The New York Times is a local paper that prints obituaries for every mayor of every one of the 500 or so boroughs, cities, towns and villages within 10 miles of New York City -- and so should be systematically ignored -- is ludicrous on its face. While Bearcat demands that obituaries can only be accepted if printed in papers 1,000 to 3,000 miles away from one's hometown -- and even then it's a maybe -- AusLondonder insists that a person can only be notable if they are known by every single resident of the nation of Nepal. In both cases, imposition of either of these arbitrary and irrational standards contradicts policy. AusLondonder is a newbie, but Bearcat is an admin with several hundred thousand edits. Alansohn (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope, it's not ludicrous at all: it's how NPOL works. A mayor gets a Wikipedia article in one of two ways: either they're the mayor of a major city, or the coverage of them nationalizes into something way outside the bounds of WP:ROUTINE coverage in the local media. The path for a smalltown mayor to get a Wikipedia article does not include getting a freebie on purely localized coverage just because of the technicality that the local paper happens to be the New York Times rather than the Palookaville Herald — the range of coverage has to nationalize. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Altoona Tribune source is not an obituary in the usual sense but a death notice amongst several others. AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a German emigrant who became mayor of a NJ city. Two newspaper sources. A pre-Internet person. Freda Martial (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A paid death notice is not a credible source. Suggesting that being a German mayor of a "city" (actually a town of a few thousand people then, 26,000 now) is a reason to keep is satirical. AusLondonder (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a paid death notice, it is a standard New York Times obituary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like this person is notable, considering how long ago he lived, and there's probably a lot more info in newspapers of his time that just hasn't been included here. Too early in the article's development to delete. Needs improvement but deletion is an overreach. Rockypedia (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see the discussion I have raised regarding sources at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability question AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can anyone provide a copy of the New York Times obituary? I'd like to see how detailed it is, but my archive access only goes back to 1980. I'm concerned that the other sources cited only mention Breisacher in passing, so if the NYT coverage isn't more in-depth, then I am inclined to suggest deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Cordless Larry the article is one column wide and 16 lines long. It mentions his position as mayor and as postmaster giving dates but no additional details. It mentions his cause of death, his age, and lists his surviving relatives. That is all. I will email you a copy of the PDF version if you ask -- I won't post it generally. (I have NYT archive access back to 1851 I think.) I don't think this obit alone establishes notability, not the way a longer and more detailed obit would. It does indicate some degree of note being taken, and some facts which might point to notability on a more detailed, offline search in my view. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, DESiegel. In light of this, I don't think the subject meets our criteria based on the sources that have been found. I therefore say delete, and if offline sources establishing notability subsequently emerge, then the article can be recreated based on these. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAlthough the New York Times has become a national newspaper, the obit seems to be more of a regional coverage of someone who died in a suburb of New York City. I don't see any other serious claims of notability. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep unless this is refuted. WP:GNG is barely satisfied (as per Hobit) only if the local-only clause of WP:NPOL cannot be invoked. There seems to be clear consensus that being in the NYT makes a strong case for notability. At crux here is whether or not the obituary is submitted by the paper itself as worthy news or if the paper accepts obits by any external entity, and whether or not the paper typically lists the obituary for other local politicians of the same position. I've seen cases here arguing both positions, but nothing definitive/proven. As per being an inclusionist, I don't see any harm keeping the article around for a while until this issue can be determined more definitively. -- RM 17:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Strong Keep. WP:ROUTINE is the guideline of the policy WP:NOTNEWS. Being news is not a valid reason for inclusion. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there exists encyclopedias of history. The reason for inclusion is history, not news. It is not too soon. As history, an obituary is a perfectly reasonable reliable source. WP:NPOL does not apply either, because the references imply that the subject is not just a politician, but is known for other things. The guide states "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics.". Even if locality is proven we still do not have enough evidence that he is non-notable under NPOL. Due to the age, we can't use a lazy google search to determine non-notability. WP:NPOL also allows an exception for WP:GNG, and there is enough reliable information from multiple independent sources to justify inclusion of the historical subject. No valid reason is left to delete. -- RM 11:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable historic figure, and reliably sources. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG with multiple, reliable independent sources.--TM 15:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.