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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin L. Crawford

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable county executive. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, was previously at AfD in 2008 and closed as no consensus. It seems WP:POLITCIAN was less clear at that time. The only coverage that exists outside of the local newspaper is an obituary. Rusf10 (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG SportingFlyer talk 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since 1) six of the currently-provided sources are independent of the subject, 2) five are news organizations, 3) none of the deletionists have put any effort into locating other WP:RS, the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" criterion of WP:POLITICIAN has been met. As most sources about the subject are likely behind paywalls, the deletionists are also guilty of source availability bias. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not significant coverage of the subject, the coverage is very routine and not in-depth. The current sourcing of the article consists of the following: 1. A New York Times obituary- people rarely become notable upon death so there should be coverage during his life. 2. An article about naming a county building after him in the local newspaper 3. Election results in the local newspaper 4 & 5. Basically the same as #2 6. A press release 7. A primary source. There is no "source availability bias", the only source I was unable to read was the third which I'm sure was just election results.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Crawford passes WP:GNG and subparts 2 and 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. He was a major figure in the history of Broome County, New York, an area with a population of more than 200,000 (greater than 27 countries). He has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. A search of the Newspapers.com database turns up more than 10,000 hits for "Edwin L. Crawford". Coverage includes: (1) Edwin Crawford, 68; Ran Counties Group, The New York Times, 10/1/93; (2) Leader of county government lobby group dies, The Ithaca Journal (Associated Press), 9/28/93; (3) Edwin L. Crawford: Cancer takes life of a Broome County 'pioneer', Press & Sun-Bulletin, 9/28/93; (4) Crawford Fighting For Political Survival, Binghamton Press, 9/7/76; (5) Crawford Piles Up 10,000-Vote Plurality, The Evening Press, 11/5/69; (6) Broome honors first county executive, Press & Sun-Bulletin, 11/11/15; and (7) Crawford In Chairman Race, Lacks 26 Votes, The Sunday Press, 12/18/66. Cbl62 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of sources about Crawford provide the significant needed to meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:29, 7 March 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.