Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Schreiber


 * 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 Delete (based upon consensus of established editors) Yank sox  00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Art Schreiber

 * — (View AfD)

Clearing CAT:CSD, found this page tagged as a. I don't see this being a clear speedy delete. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article is well-referenced and from what I gather he seems notable enough to be included. Jayden54 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above point by Jayden. Sharkface217 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - both Harry Rosenberg (CEO of Landmark Education) and Steve Zaffron (CEO of Landmark Educaction Business Development) were deleted speedily. All three profiles were added by user Smeelgova.  Harry Rosenberg was deleted for lack of notability and Steve Zaffron was deleted for a personal attack.  Please note that most of my contributions are on Landmark Education, and Smeelgova has successfully marked my AFD recommendations as such (a single user account).  This is, in my opinion, a means of evading policy regarding notability. Sm1969 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - a corporate lawyer; not really notable Spacefarer 02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Spacefarer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - I must agree- how many other lawyers of a corporation have an encyclopedia entry? Ridiculous!Alex Jackl 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC) — AJackl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic., see
 * Delete as NN --RaiderAspect 09:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep highly sourced. Smeelgova 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC). (DISCLOSURE: Smeelgova is the creator and primary author of this article with over 80% of the edits done by Smeelgova in addition to creation of the article.)
 * Delete The people who seem to want it kept haven't appeared to have made any other argument apart from how well sourced it is. Come on do we really care about this guys bar memberships? Debaser23 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment See notability of similar article, Moxon & Kobrin. Smeelgova 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Delete -I don't see what is so important about a corporate lawyer either.Spruceforest 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -Article cited by Smeelgova is about a law firm, not corporate lawyers. I just still don't see what the point of this article is.Blondie0309 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Blondie0309 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete -I concur with the points for the deletion of this article. I don't believe this merits a separate article. Nsamuel 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) — Nsamuel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - There is nothing notable about the general counsel of a company (with a few exceptions), nor is every partner or former partner of every law firm notable. So this article fails WP:Bio.  On top of that, the second half seems to be about some legal dispute - I don't know the story on that, but it doesn't seem to have anything to establish notability or have much to do with, well, anything.  Maybe it was put there for WP:V?  In any event - delete. --TheOtherBob 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing Oakshade's comment, I realize I missed the fact that he was also Chairman of the Board of Landmark. That makes it a closer case, but I still think that it is a delete. --TheOtherBob 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Very well sourced and referenced. Chairman of Landmark Education in itself makes him notable. --Oakshade 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So he writes letters. So do I. He's a lawyer - he's doing his job. What separates him from the others? References or not, I don't see the notability. Delete. B.Wind 02:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that five of the delete comments left so far are from Single purpose accounts that only are registered on Wikipedia in order to edit out all negative POV with relation to this topic. Smeelgova 22:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Comment - Please note that the author of the above comment is himself a single purpose account and innaccurately labeled mine as such. Alex Jackl 17:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC) — AJackl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic., see


 * Comment - Please note that the user Smeelgova has over 2000 edits on Landmark Education and related topics, including Art Schreiber. As mentioned above, both the CEO of Landmark Education and Landmark Education Business Development were speedy delete candidates for lack of notability and an attack page.  The 2000 edits of user Smeelgova have made very non-notable articles and events into this encyclopedia, and Art Schreiber (this AFD) is no exception. Sm1969 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC) — Sm1969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Virtually a repetition of what he said above, and still doesn't get around all the single purpose accounts that come to these AFD's en masse, but okay. Smeelgova 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Additional comment (edit conflicts): a perusal of the contribution list of Sm1969 reveals a very similar pattern. It appears that the two editors have been involved in edit wars on at least two different fronts. The above comment about any potential conflict of interest is disingenuous in light of SM1969's own conflict of interest regarding Smeelgova. Now that each has had his say, let's move on. B.Wind 23:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional Response I've had about 1,000 edits in 1.5 years, versus 2,000 edits for Smeelgova on this topic in six months (0.5 years). Most of my edits, I would classify as defenses to Smeelgova's 2,000 edits which are pervasively anti-LE.  For about six months, for example, the article would have been better entitled "criticisms of Landmark Education."  I hope the Admin who clears this out simply takes note of the notability of Art Schreiber as A) a coporate attorney and B) that both the CEO of LE and CEO of Landmark Education business development were true speedy delete candidates.  In short, the AFD debate should depend on 1) content and 2) Wikipedia policy, not the number of people voting one way or another.  Sm1969 00:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note how this editor continues to comment in the face of a request to move on by a neutral editor. Suffice it to say that both of us have edit warred in the past.  Perhaps comments from single purpose accounts should be taken with that consideration.  Smeelgova 00:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete, Non-notable. Not all corporate lawyers need a bio on Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  Clearly not notable.  Dionyseus 01:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.