Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Seabrook

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 keep. Has had 49 edits since being nominated. Can someone trim all the unused infobox parameters though? They are literal cruft. Geschichte (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Seabrook

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional, poorly-written page for a forgotten union official who fails WP:ANYBIO. Local/regional news coverage is more related to the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association. If there is no consensus to delete, I suggest a redirect to that page. KidAd • SPEAK 22:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he ran the largest municipal jail Union plus he had some controversy. More research and work on the article might make it better.--Rrmmll22 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ No policy-based rationale here. Just WP:ILIKEIT. KidAd • SPEAK 00:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words he passes WP:GNG very easily. There is no reason to delete this. He ran the largest Union in NYC and he had weekly radio show that was popular and then he got bagged for corruption big time. He lost like 20 million in the Union employees retirement funding. There are tons of articles on this incident, plus he was very influential during his almost 20 years as Union leader. I had never head of this guy and just did some quick research on him and found he was quite spoken about in news articles. Also WP:NTEMP makes, “forgotten union official” not have any merit. Granted it needs to be worked on some but it should not be deleted this guy is a very colorful character it would appear. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was a powerplayer in NYC politics. He was very influential and ran into corruption issues. I did not want to put the corruption issues in as it may have violated Bio of Living Person . I am also the author of the article. BlackAmerican (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Individual passes GNG by my assessment. Interesting finds include this bio from the US Treasury, coverage of his situation by the AP and the New York Times, US Attorney briefing, assessment by Columbia Law School. Article does need heavy cleanup, though. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The extensive reporting in national newspapers on the subject of the article, referred to above, means that Seabrook definitely meets WP:GNG. I counted twenty articles directly on Seabrook in the New York Times and many others are tangentially about him. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most biographies fail WP:ANYBIO, so that's not a useful deletion rationale. The bio seems to pass WP:BASIC and it's not a WP:BLP1E, so should be kept. pburka (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2021 (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.