Talk:Atlantic County Executive
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Title
edit@Semmendinger:@Alansohn: to consolidate earlier discussion: In order to maintain consistency across Wikipedia, a title change (page move) might be appropriate. Question is: which similarly titled pages could/should inform that decision? One sees most political office holders as Mayor of..., Governor of..., etc, but on the other hand one also sees: Snohomish County Executive, Westchester County Executive, King County Executive, County Executive of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and List of county executives of Jackson County, Missouri. Perhaps the above linked are indeed official names; would need to check both those and at Atlantic County. Djflem (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Djflem: I'm partial to either "County Executive of Atlantic County, New Jersey" (as it was originally) or "Atlantic County Executive", with a slight preference for the latter. It's less wordy and makes the page more about the position rather than the people who have held the position as the current name suggests. I also do agree with Rusf10 to a degree, that this page does cross into BLP territory. Since the headers have now been changed it's a lot better, but perhaps less biographical data should be included now since it's not entirely relevant to the scope of the page and the topic itself passes notability. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Semmendinger:@Alansohn:The background of the persons who held the office is minimimal, and actually should be expanded to include DOB/death(?), education, origins, work-related relevant the job. As it stands now much info is about their election, quite appropriate. Could also go either way with name. Alansohn?Djflem (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- As long as you both agree on that, it's fine with me. The only one pushing the envelope for me is Dennis Levinson, but I agree all election-related information is needed and therefore it's only 2-3 sentences which I felt were a bit too biographical for this article. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm fully on board with this logic. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- The major problem with this page is, with one 's', it's currently about the people who have held the office and not the office itself. I still have a problem with the narrative part of the page; I think it should just be a list or in tabular format in order to satisfy WP:BLP, as only one of these people are notable on their own. Looking at King County Executive, "Atlantic County executive" would be my vote for a rename. SportingFlyer talk 17:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm fully on board with this logic. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- As long as you both agree on that, it's fine with me. The only one pushing the envelope for me is Dennis Levinson, but I agree all election-related information is needed and therefore it's only 2-3 sentences which I felt were a bit too biographical for this article. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Semmendinger:@Alansohn:The background of the persons who held the office is minimimal, and actually should be expanded to include DOB/death(?), education, origins, work-related relevant the job. As it stands now much info is about their election, quite appropriate. Could also go either way with name. Alansohn?Djflem (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Discussion/page move?
editWikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey. While the discussion banner on page clearly says "Feel free to improve the article" and Wikipedia:EDITATAFD supports that, Wikipedia:EDITATAFD also says "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)."
Considering that this page was nominated for delection @ 21:40, 25 February 2018, a mere 3.5 hours after it was created @ 18:13, 25 February 2018, it seems a page move would not be unjustified since the scope/intervening edits have clarified it, as is normal with newly-launch articles? The hasty deletion tag/ time to wait is clearly an unnecessary burden to the workings of creating an encyclopedia?Djflem (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- Since the AfD is now closed in a resulting keep, I think the name can now be changed. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Would agree with you 100%, as have 2 other editors. Unfortunately the creator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey is displeased with the outcome: the AfD has been rejected. Instead of trying to make a good argument on the active discussion on the talk page and trying to find some Wikipedia:Consensus s/he's dragging it to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March 6. One can only question if this is part of the continued battle with the article's creator. (That may also explain why the article was nominated for delection @ 21:40, 25 February 2018, a mere 3.5 hours after it was created @ 18:13, 25 February 2018). That ongoing war is is the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico.) Dragging it to deletion review does not assume good faith and IMO is clearly a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The nominator has engaged in the ongoing discussion and rather than continue to do so has chosen a contentious approach to drag it to deletion review to (temporarily) block the title change (page move) under discussion. If one looks there the discussion, which properly is and should be taking place here, it has now spilled over to the inappropriate venue. Djflem (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)