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. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 08:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K. Ruotolo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, county prosecutors are not usually notable. Coverage is routine, an obituary and a few mentions in stories about car theft. The previous discussion was closed as keep, although the result really should have been "no consensus". Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article was brought to AfD less than a year ago by the same editor. It was Kept with the comment by the closing editor "The result was keep after improvements to the article.". Bringing it here again seems to teeter on the brink of DISRUPT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Standard practice of muddying the waters from you. Please strike your personal attack. Renominating an article for deletion 9 months later is not WP:DISRUPT and you should know better. The general advice on renominating for deletion has always been six months. A result of 3 keep and 2 delete is hardly a consensus to keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the reason why the 1st AfD closed as KEEP, which was that WP:HEYMANN improvement had been made by RAN.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP for pretty much the same reasons editors gave for iVoting to KEEP last winter. And because it reliably sourced and passes WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Among the notable cases that could be added to the article is the Chinese espionage case portrayed here: [1], and described in Nicholas Eftimiades's book Chinese Intelligence Operations: Espionage Damage Assessment Branch, US Defense Intelligence Agency, Routledge, 2017. And in the Chicago Tribune,14 February 1984 High-tech plot partial success.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You want to use a group picture as a source, is this a joke? The second source is paywalled, but my guess is it only has a passing mention of Ruotolo.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my comment. I linked to a courtroom sketch by a notable artist that shows Rufolo at the trial (archives of one of America's great Law School), to a book, and to an article on the case in the Chicago Tribune to make the point that the Rufolo article can be expanded by the addition of a notable case about Chinese espionage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure he fails WP:POLITICIAN and he fails WP:NFOOTY too. Quite a loser. But the article cites two obituaries (one sourced to Associated Press), both different, plus another one in the NYT. Substantial and differently written. That's good enough for me. In addition there are several articles (and many more uncited) individually giving less than "significant coverage". The reason WP:N gives for discounting these is that they do not supposedly allow us to write more than " a few sentences". That is clearly wrong in this case and for any article where the brief mentions provide information on different aspects of a topic. So, I'll invoke "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" here – that is not to ignore the rules but it is to abide by the notability guidelines. Thincat (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Thincat that the three obituaries cited in the article are sufficient to establish notability. As WP:POLITICIAN explains: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'." This person does not meet the subject-specific notability guideline, but it's immaterial because he does meet the general notability guideline. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:42, which is good enough for any article. --Jayron 32 15:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Was kept in January by clear community consensus. Please nominate articles wisely! gidonb (talk) 03:46, 18 August 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.