Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Murphy (New Jersey politician)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Discounting the IP. Sandstein 05:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Murphy (New Jersey politician)

[edit]
Michael Murphy (New Jersey politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to WP:BIORELATED, "being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." (He is the son of a former Governor.) Ran in the Democratic primary for NJ Governorship in 1997, but did not pass the primary phase. According to WP:POLITICIAN, only "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Only real claim to fame is having been a County Prosecutor, and I don't see how his role as County Prosecutor for Morris County makes him a "major local political figure ... who received significant press coverage." Also contains a lot of external links, which makes the page seem a little suspicious for self-promotion. (Also contains external links for a client list.) Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and absolute lack of significant coverage. Mredidiongekong (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep. Profiles make it easy to source an article that will pass WP:BASIC, and they support the idea that he was a power in statewide politics. Plus two prosecuting marquee murder cases that drew international attention - not your run-of-the-mill suburban country prosecutor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing is not cutting it for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG — there's one article that's substantively enough about him to start counting for something, which isn't enough to get him over the finish line all by itself as the article's only source that counts for something, and other than that it's referenced exclusively to listicles and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other people or things. And nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to clear GNG, either — people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being non-winning candidates in gubernatorial primaries, and neither lawyers nor lobbyists are automatically notable just for existing either. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a much better job than this of demonstrating and referencing his notability properly, but what's here isn't close to good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Murphy had an awfully high profile during the Mohammed Abequa case. See: searches in NYTIMES [1]. I think we need to encounter his work as a prosecutor in looking at notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that further exploration of the subject's potential notability as a prosecutor is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 01:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are, in fact, many INDEPTH sources. The question is whether a one-time public prosecutor who handled the Arthur Seale and Mohammed Abequa kidnap/murder cases that drew sustained international attention, fails WP:GNG on the grounds that the multiple, long, INDEPTH profiles of him that ran in the Philadelphia Inquirer, New York Times, The Star-Ledger, and in local newspapers cause him to fail WP:SIGCOV on the grounds that they ran during campaigns for office, despite the fact that he is no longer running for office. Searches on his name are confounded even when using keywords, because just among Michaels Murphy currently active in politics we have Mike Murphy (political consultant), Mike Murphy (Washington politician), Mike Murphy (New Brunswick politician), Michael Murphy (Indiana politician) - (not to mention the rest of the remarkably long list or Michaels at Michael Murphy (disambiguation).) The first hit on the name in today's gNews search is a documentary filmaker. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still in the news regularly? Are those sources representative of that because none of them had Murphy as the subject of the article. It seems kinda deceptive to use sources behind a paywall for most editors that name-drop him, and pass it off as the coverage we need.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because paywalls exist with blue-chip sources such as the Wall Street Journal, I included full quotations from these articles. Please retract your accusation that this is "misleading."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I will because that doesn't change the fact Murphy wasn't a significant subject in the sources you provided. That's worth sighing over since this is common practice for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, pretty much standard operating procedure. E.M. Gregory will use any source that name checks a person. Take the source provided that is not behind a pay wall [2], it only has one sentence that mentions Murphy, "Becker previously managed former Morris County Prosecutor Michael Murphy’s 1997 New Jersey gubernatorial race." That sentence is so trivial its not even worth using as a reference. I highly doubt the wall street journal article about the waterfront commission does much more than just quote Murphy either. Murphy was appointed to the commission a few years ago. He is one of two commissioners, the other being from New York. Since it is not a cabinet level position, he does not get auto-notability for this under NPOL. The commission is no longer that important and although it was created to prevent crime and corruption (ie. the kind of stuff going on in On the Waterfront), it has itself become corrupt, see [3] and the states are thinking about disbanding it.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you supposed to be voting twice? - Ambrosiaster (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops. thought I had commented without actually iVoting.
  • Comment - I added four Newspapers.com sources (check out WP:TWL if you are interested in free accounts for Newspapers.com and other databases, its great!) and reorganized the page a bit. Two in particular are significant, this from 1998 and this from 1999. All four articles are in the Morristown, NJ local paper and are written by local paper staff writers. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEY, nice cleanup of article, and i NOTE that the 1998 article you mention is INDEPTH and is entitled Former Morris prosecutor Murphy to join one of state's top law firms. Too tight a focus on WP:NPOL #3, while ignoring WP:NPOL #2 "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." can lead to inappropriate deletions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately I think both of those are run of the mill. You frequently see stories in local newspapers about relatively important locals changing jobs. Just because the press discusses you doesn't make it significant press coverage. SportingFlyer talk 23:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, there is plentiful SIGCOV, what the 1998 article demonstrates is ONGOING coverage that is INDEPTH and post-campaigns. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that the question "Should local New Jersey political figures have biographical entries?" is one of the topics discussed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Here: The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia’s Editors From Killing Each Other. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above, struck by User:Rusf10, is about an article in the Wall Street Journal on the remarkable intensity of editing on the notability of politicians in New Jersey, and how edit wars are arbitrated. It is not flattering to us as editors. I noticed the article and mention it here because I, too, have found the intensity of editing on New Jersey politicians to be remarkable. We should all be aware of the damage that our petty personal feuding does to the reputation of the project.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with this article (the reason it was struck) and about the arbitration committee, with a very brief mention New Jersey articles! As usual, you misrepresent articles behind paywalls. Fortunately, I now know how to bypass the WSJ paywall, so I read the article. The request was not "Should local New Jersey political figures have biographical entries?". The WSJ obviously was given bad information.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NoteThis edit had a summary said to see talk page, but there is nothing to see on the talk page. Why? Appears the deleted comment to which the above edit refers is the subject of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent violation of Interaction Ban between Rusf10 and AlansohnDjflem (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Daily Record sources (the majority listed) are strictly local. The "Power List" and "New Jersey Law Journal" are casual mentions. The 6/4/97 NYT is somewhere between significant and ROUTINE, but more towards the latter. The 6/6/97 NYT article is the most in-depth and carries weight towards GNG, but I don't see that the guidelines GNG or NPOL have been met. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how useful such a thing might be, but this comment suggests that national- or regional-level coverage of his campaign might better show the suitability of this subject for an article. The Philadelphia Inquirer in a North Jersey section did a very long write-up on Murphy in May 1997 while he was running for governor. Most of the material in that article are in the page already, but I added a few personal and professional details from the article to the page. Here is the reference with links: Ginsberg, Thomas. Dark horse with political background hits the home stretch, The Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) 29 May 1997, page B1, B6. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:26, 10 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Murphy_(New_Jersey_politician)&oldid=1073024780"