Talk:John H. Stamler

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John H. Stamler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521134848/http://ucnj.org/government/prosecutor/john-h-stamler-police-academy/ to http://ucnj.org/government/prosecutor/john-h-stamler-police-academy/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability

I weighed in on this subject at the AFD but did not get to check back in or I would have contested the clear consensus to delete that was tainted by one editor "contesting" almost every !vote and that is disruptive. Adding extra comments is one thing but of course an opposition !vote would "Contest" any opposite opinion and the job of the closer is to weigh !votes (not just a head count) as supported by current policies and guidelines and in accordance to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions.

I didn't look at the timeline but there was a blocked editor also involved. I have not been able to find any "other" sources that even remotely establish that a prosecutor that lived and died, maybe a great person, even fantastic, but there is absolutely nothing that can be construed as remotely being notable.

• I am totally against some "push" that an editor MUST state at an AFD, as a condition to !voting", that the editor must prove performing a WP:BEFORE that would be paramount to "I the following editor certifies I have tried in vain to find other notable sources and was unable to do so.". If that is being pushed ,that a "Before" needs to be shown to have been performed and stated as such, then I have a serious problem with this and think that editor can perform the action if it is that important.

The nominator showed with "the only mentions of him are routine during coverage of crimes that he prosecuted" and I looked but did not certify in writing, and have it notarized, that I also performed a search. If the "contesting" editor or anyone else wishes to start a "formal" venue to explore if this is a criterion, that a nominator must certify performing a "BEFORE" or the entire AFD is tainted, I will be obligated to follow this to a conclusion.

I still have not been able to find anything to advance notability other than a man was born, became a prosecutor, and died. Just pushing that having an obituary in the New York Times is not sufficient. A "push" that all things should be in Wikipedia, even throwing out any notability clause or lack of (or even no) sources is acceptable is insane.

If there can be no other evidence of notability found, and no one else wishing to explore this, I will have to nominate this article again for AFD. Otr500 (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)