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. Given sources found, improvements made to the article and current consensus of editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander J. Clements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Apparently this person is notable only for one event wp:1E, in which he is a perpetrator of a crime WP:PERP. On these two counts, I propose to delete this article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Transportation, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• inclined to weak delete, there doesn't seem to be any lasting coverage here to establish broader notability, even the NYT obit is a brief paragraph. I'd expect a bit more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a note that I've looked at Mike's sources, and find myself with Alansohn that this is not quite at the level of GNG. If we could find coverage of him in a secondary source published more recently, that would go a ways to establishing notability in my opinion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't "Notability does not expire" apply, though? What would we get from a biographical article in a modern publication that we don't get from this one? I will see if I can find time to dig up more sources on him, by the way. There are dozens of articles about him in the Jersey Observer and Jersey Journal, and I have to say I don't understand why those don't count -- it's clear from the fact that it's a local paper that his fame was not widespread, but GNG says significant coverage in independent sources, not significant coverage in sources that are not local in nature. Would it help to post more of the sources from the Jersey Observer and Jersey Journal? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability doesn’t expire, but I’m of the opinion that if someone living today had the same coverage we see here, they also wouldn’t be notable. In my opinion, not all newspaper coverage is created equal— profiles in newspapers of national scope are far more indicative of notability than local/regional ones. We would expect politicians to get this sort of coverage in their cities papers.
  however I will reassess your sources sometime this week- I haven’t viewed it all at once. Getting surgery today so not sure when I can circle back. But it’s on my list. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Best of luck with the surgery, and don't worry about coming back here if you're under the weather as a result. I hope the surgery is not for anything serious. If you do make it back here, my reply would be that I take the point about local sources, but local papers a century ago were more significant sources of news than they are now; and Clements appears with articles about him specifically (i.e. not just mentioning him in passing) over multiple decades in multiple new Jersey papers.

  I think you have a point here, but in my opinion the coverage here is pretty typical for local politicians of the era. To establish notability, I would personally look for lengthy biographical features, such as an extended obituary, or evidence that coverage of what he did drew national attention (for instance reprinting/coverage in different states). It's especially telling to me that we haven't been able to dig up secondary sources on Clements more removed from the events. There is an argument to be made that this does add up to sigcov by a simple reading of GNG, but it is my opinion that such a reading would open us up to thousands of articles about fairly unremarkable local politicians, which I don't think would be a desirable thing. YMMV on this. Wouldn't be opposed to a smerge/redirect to the courthouse, as that does seem the main thing he attracted non-local coverage for. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the main difference between us is that I think it would be fine to have those thousands of articles. There are quite a few articles about him that make no references to the courthouse scandal, and also quite a few (plus the biographical para in the book source) that predate the scandal. My reading of the GNG and notability in general is that arguing it would be undesirable to have so many articles about local politicians is exercising editorial judgement in a way we're really not supposed to -- if sufficient sources exist, the argument for deletion should fail. It does look as if this is going to be deleted, which really surprises me -- I thought I had a pretty good handle on our notability policies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Two short Times articles is not quite significant coverage. His office was too low and local to pass WP:NPOL automatically. A foot soldier in an otherwise notable party machine corruption, and a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some sources (I stopped after finding these, but searching for "Alexander J. Clements" in newspapers.com from 1910 to 1914 finds quite a few more than this):
  • 1914 article about Clements, among other people; he makes the headline and there's a picture of him.
  • Clipping about the scandal in early 1911 -- not much about Clements but indicates that the scandal itself might deserve an article.
  • Clements running for Sheriff.
  • Article about Clements and a political rival
  • Article about the scandal, multiple quotes from Clements' being questioned.
  • Clements not endorsed for Sheriff by a local group
  • Also about the endorsement issue

    I think these certainly establish that the scandal is worth an article. I don't think Clements' article should be merged with it as it appears he was a political figure independently; not all the articles about him are about the scandal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since there's been another delete !vote since I posted these, here are some more. Since Reywas92 commented that all but one cite was to a single small paper, I've excluded several from that paper, in favour of other sources. I should also point out that the two cites presently in the article are to the New York Times.

  • Editorial on whether Clements should run for sheriff
  • Loses ruling by the Civil Service Board Article in the Newark Star-Eagle.
  • Clements arrested for assault
  • Testimony about graft by Clements, among others Article in the Courier-Post
  • Coverage of the court house probe. In the Trenton Evening Times.
  • Biographical article in a history of Trenton.

    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And one last comment before this closes; the nomination cites PERP and 1E, but those do not apply as I've given numerous sources that make no mention of the Hudson courthouse case, but which are instead about his political career, other apparent instances of corruption, his personal life, and his business. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mike Christie, you have done an amazing research job. Thanks for pointing out all these references. I must admit that I have reviewed only a few of them. As the nominator, I would like to give my reflection at this point of the lively and interesting discussion. The first question is, what is the person notable for. See Wikipedia:Notability (people), first paragraph: "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." Second question is if there is enough significant coverage in independent sources to establish the notability. You have provided a lot of material for an answer to the second question but I have not seen an answer to the first question to start with. Certainly the lead paragraph of the article is not helpful: Supervisor of roads, cabinetmaker, leader of the First Ward, owner of a saloon, failed attempt to become sheriff and councilman. Prima facie, with all respect, nothing worth of note. His claim to notability seems to be his role in the Hudson Courthouse graft scandal. That is why I mentioned PERP and 1E and proposed deletion. Now, after seeing all these newspaper snippets mentioning the name of Clements, I am still looking for the answer to the question about what he is notable for. As @Bearian pointed out, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:MILL and Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED provide additional guidance. The collection of newspaper clippings only seem to confirm that his relevance is limited to local interest and that there is not enough worthy of notice to support a Wikipedia entry for Mr. Clements. If I have missed something noteworthy, please adapt the article accordingly. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Ruud, thanks for the ping. Clements was a local politician. He held the post of Freeholder, a position which is now known as a county commissioner. Such a position would not by itself be enough to confer notability, but I think that the sources demonstrate that he was well-known locally; he is mentioned in the headline of many of the articles. He was also clearly well-known for being corrupt, not an unusual characteristic of local politicians in those days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete All of these sources but one are in the local Jersey Observer and Jersey Journal; a comparable figure today, even with this sort of coverage, would be unlikely to have an article because we tend to avoid pages on low-level political figures with local coverage. The scandal is briefly mentioned at Hudson_County_Courthouse#Construction, perhaps it can be expanded upon there before splitting it to a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 02:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that if the article is not kept, a merge to that article would be appropriate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An interesting story, but "failed local politician ends up in graft scandal" is the most frequent headline in any New Jersey newspaper, appearing once or twice on a daily basis in many area papers. Even with the many sources found by Mike Christie, I don't see the notability guideline being met. Alansohn (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Keep The article as it existed when nominated merited deletion; the obituary in The new York Times does not confer notability, but the totality of the sources and content added by User:Mike Christie since the nomination show that the notability standard is satisfied. I couldn't be any happier to say that I was proven wrong. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alansohn, I don't often participate in AfDs, so perhaps I'm not up to date on how the various guidelines are used. Can you tell me why you think this doesn't meet the GNG? There's a book which gives his biographical information and an NYT obituary. It would be hard to find much better sources than those, surely? The book is not self-published as far as I can see. The GNG doesn't require that each source be solely about the subject of an article, and some of these sources are specifically about Clements, while others devote one or more paragraphs to him or his political prospects. We have multiple local papers who have written about him, not just one. I agree that there would be a great many articles about corrupt New Jersey politicians if we covered all of them, but as far as I know that's not a valid argument for deletion. What more would be needed in your eyes for this to meet the GNG? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mike Christie, I look at obituaries in The New York Times about a dozen times, and that's on a slow day; it can be one of the most useful sources of information and support for notability, in the right cases, where there are strong claims of notability and in-depth coverage about the individual. I had looked at this page where his obituary appears before passing judgement. Of about 40-50 obituaries on that one page that one day, it's a bit above average in scope, but it covers little more in its four paragraphs than 1) the details of his death, 2) his employment career, 3) his connection to Frank Hague and his unsuccessful runs for office and 4) his survivors. WP:GNG, the general notability guideline is simply not met. There are few things that give me greater joy than seeing an article at AfD that can be rescued with the addition of sources; unfortunately, this is not one of them. I have no objection to a merge about the scandal, but Clements does not appear to be individually notable. Nothing would make me happier than to be convinced otherwise, but I don't see it here. Alansohn (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, thanks for the explanation. I do feel this marginally passes the GNG; perhaps it's the "significant coverage" phrase there that we're interpreting differently. But let's see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources. From the New York Times:
  • from September 1911, mentions the scandal and gives a couple of sentences about Clements
  • about Clements arrest and bail
  • about the scandal, coverage of claims of what Clements did
• More from the Jersey Observer and Jersey Journal:
  • Clements supporter arrested at the polls
  • election prank
  • Suite against Clements to collect a debt
  • "Clements Lost Fight Against Otto Wittpenn". Subtitled "licked out of his boots in his own ward".
  • Confirms candidacy for sheriff
• Elsewhere:
  • Ninth annual ball of the Alex Clements association
  • A couple of paragraphs about the Clements Association
  • Another outing of the Clements association. There are several more articles about the association which I haven't bothered to clip.
  • Clements prosecution abandoned
  • More coverage of Clements losing a board ruling -- another story about this is linked above.
  • Takes over as Superintendent of Roads; mentions his salary
  • Runs for commission job

  Are these enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And more sources:
  • Front page article about Clements as the corespondent in a divorce case
  • Appointed poultry inspector, covers loss of Superintendent of Bridges position
  • Apparent fraud in Clements' district
  • Another arrest, this time on Long Island
  • Clements ousted from the Hudson courthouse
  • Opts for jury trial in Hudson courthouse case
  • Biographical paragraph about Clements as a Freeholder candidate in 1898
  • Acknowledgement that Clements' job as Superintendent of County Bridges was graft
  • Clements getting paid for the Superintendent job despite losing the ruling
  • Allegation of corruption in bidding for a contract

    I'm going to stop there for now; I'm still only about halfway through the newspapers.com sources. I'm aware a few of these sources only mention Clements in some capacity, though sources like that can be useful to establish a timeline in a biographical article. However, many of these use Clements name in the headline and are specifically about Clements. I don't see what else I could do to establish that there is significant coverage of him in multiple independent sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources:
  • Paragraph about Clements' support for the Walsh Act and current candidacy for Commission, 1913.
  • Forced to appear before excise board to get a licence for his saloon
  • Another front page article about the divorce case in which Clements was corespondent
  • Election coverage with a paragraph about machinations involving Clements
  • About local graft, with details specifically about Clements

    Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus so far is to delete, but time should be permitted for someone to evaluate and comment on the newest sources. (That does not mean that this should be dragged out repeatedly simply by continuing to add even more sources if they still do not establish clear notability.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would be inclined to change my !vote/mind if the sources were add to the article, with appropriate text. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bearian, thanks; I'll see if I can add some of these to the article over the next couple of days. As I said to Alansohn above, I'm not a regular at AfD so I don't know the norms, but I thought an AfD !vote should consider sources regardless of whether they're actually in the article? I'm sure I've seen AfD comments to the effect that "keep" voters should not be forced to add the sources they find to the article. Or have norms changed over the years? In my own case I don't mind adding the material if it's required, but I've been busy and I thought citing the sources in the AfD would be enough for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mike Christie, the chances that the article survives the AfD discussion increase significantly if you fix it. A nice, well written, well-sourced article about a subject of debatable notability stands a much better chance than the present sloppy article that has no indication of notability. And while you´re at it, please de-orphan the article. I came across this article because it is one of the oldest orphans on Wikipedia; in ten years no other article has been linked to it. So I proposed to delete this poor article that no other article refers to, about a subject without indication of notability. You have a better grasp of the subject and the sources than anyone else. You are best placed to save it and turn it into an interesting story that befits Wikipedia. Then I too would be delighted to support the keep vote. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ruud, what bothers me about this is that deletion is not supposed to be used instead of cleaning up an article -- it's explicitly listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I will do what I can to add some of these sources to the article, but I don't think it's appropriate to !vote delete if you really think that the sources are sufficient to support a worthwhile article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mike Christie, that is not what I said. I am convinced the subject is not notable and that the article should be deleted as per Wikipedia:1E and Wikipedia:PERP I think that after cleanup, it will become even clearer that this is so. But if you want to fight for it, and to enhance the chances of survival, why don´t you give it a shot and clean up the article. I have an open mind and am always willing to reconsider. As it stands, I really do not think that the all the sources you uncovered are sufficient to support a worthwile article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I'll give it a shot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent. Meanwhile, I have de-orphaned the article. See "What links here". It will attract more onlookers. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't understand how this fails WP:GNG? There appears to be extensive coverage of his life across several decades, including an NYT obit, a biography in a book, regular coverage in all the area pages (including the NYT), etc. Failing WP:NPOL is not the end of the world; WP:MILL is an essay; i.e. irrelevant to determining notability; and I don't see the keep argument to be an WP:INHERENT rationale, considering there appears to be coverage for various things across various years. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject is notable only for one event: he was one of the 14 people indicted for the Hudson Courthouse graft scandal. As per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:PERP, I think that is not enough merit for a stand-alone article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've copied all the sources above to the talk page and documented what they cover in a table there, including a column to indicate whether they are about the Hudson Courthouse scandal or not. Only 8 of the 43 sources are about the scandal, though to be fair at least four or five of the other sources are unlikely to be much use in expanding the article. I will try to find more time tomorrow to incorporate some of these into the article, now they're a little better organized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to have tons of coverage and clearly seems to be a well-known figure. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @KatoKungLee Well-known for what exactly? I think this is a case of Wikipedia:REFBOMB. 100 newspaper clippings do not provide one reason for notability. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ruud Buitelaar - He's described as a prominent figure in NJ politics here 1. He labeled as accomplished here 2. He fraud trial got coverage as we can see and he ran for office multiple times. I think the sources are enough and he seems to be someone who the average person would know about at the time in the NJ area. I also do think more sources could exist since this concerns the early 1900's.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Bearian, Reywas92, Eddie891, Ruud Buitelaar, Alansohn: I've added several paragraphs to the article using some of the sources I listed above. I have not expanded on the material for the Hudson County courthouse scandal as I was more interested in demonstrating that 1E and PERP do not apply here; instead I've expanded the material on his life, political career, and some other legal issues and graft accusations. There is more material that could be added if the consensus is still that he is not notable; there are hundreds more hits for Clements in newspapers.com but I just haven't had time to go through them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mind (and vote) has been changed; see above. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mike Christie Well done! Good job. I´ll withdraw my nomination and support keep. What changed the situation for me is the realization that the Hudson County court house graft was not an exception in an otherwise unremarkable career; the job of Superintendent of Bridges was created especially for Clements and who nows, the supervisor of roads job now also looks like cronyism. Clements´s career was marked by political corruption and he gained notoriety for that, even outside the Hudson County borders. Maybe at the time, that was run of the mill. Be that as it may, the biography gives a good impression of local politics at the turn of the century and deserves to be kept. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination after @Mike Christie changed the picture by uncovering new sources, adding reasons for notability and cleaning up the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, am pleasantly surprised that a far more comprehensive article was able be built here than I thought. Happy to strike my original comment. Keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:15, 6 April 2024 (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.