Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Those opposing the article's deletion have generally failed to cite any relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines, instead insisting on "transparency" and positing various conspiracy theories. In addition, the vast majority of those opposing deletion are new editors, or editors who have not edited Wikipedia for months, only to suddenly show up here demanding the article be kept. The fact that this deletion discussion has been widely advertised offsite (e.g., [ , ), with people there agitating that it should be kept, explains their presence here. Those supporting deletion of the article have cited relevant guidelines (e.g. WP:N, WP:POVFORK), and point out that the actual sources used, aside from one, aren't about the subject. Another relevant policy is WP:CSD G4. Perhaps most importantly, the only purpose of this article appears to be as a means of attacking Emanuel or his father; thus WP:BLP comes into play. This AfD also needs to be closed quickly, as this deletion page itself is becoming a violation of WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin M. Emanuel
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A minor figure. Not notable as a mere member of the Irgun. Not notable as a pediatrician. Not notable as the father of three notable sons. Can easily be covered in their biographies without a separate article. Biruitorul Talk 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chicago-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are thousands of references to Benjamin Emanuel on Google. DeadNative (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are, let us say, 6-7,000 hits on him (different from references). But can you bring evidence that he has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", as required by WP:N? -- Biruitorul Talk 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Benjamin Emanuel meets that stricture. To go after this page while "articles" such as Father_(song) have been ignored for deletion strikes me as a rather particular agenda. DeadNative (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:AGF. And I repeat my earlier request, with more emphasis: can you bring evidence that he has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", as required by WP:N? -- Biruitorul Talk 21:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A look at the references used in the article would suffice if one doubted. New York Times, Haaretz, Fortune, Maariv, Jerusalem Post, New York Daily News and the Chicago Tribune are proof of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Earliest mention is 1997 and latest is just today.DeadNative (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even before Rahm Emanuel’s recent political ascent, Benjamin Emanuel’s life story has been deemed important enough to be profiled by many news sources, including the NYT and Fortune Magazine. But now with Rahm Emanuel’s new prominence, Benjamin Emanuel’s participation in the Irgun and his recent quote about his son’s putative support for Israel are fueling many recent news articles. (Just one example: ) International perceptions about the Emanuel family have policy implications for the new Obama administration. A properly-sourced, authoritative wiki biography is important to clarify the facts of Dr. Emanuel’s life and to quash the false rumors that are circulating.Claisen (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Deleted at the last AfD, nothing has changed - still insufficiently notable in his own right.  Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  10:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not an accurate statement as the article has changed and he has been referenced in more reliable publications recently. Please supply an argument for deletion that is applicable at this time. &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Dsol (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The information is important and should not be hidden from the public on wikipedia  (which unfortunately has acquired some reputation for 'selective information'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joneve (talk • contribs)
 * No one is trying to "hide" anything, but if an article fails to meet certain policies (which this does), then it should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 03:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The articles cited appear to be diverse enough secondary sources for wp:v and wp:n. Merging is a less attractive option given that not all is directly relevant to his sons' lives.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep.This is all verifiable information and important for the public for transparency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.132.137.68 (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not here to provide "transparency" to the public. Biruitorul Talk 06:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Oh - not here for transparency? So we are here for hiding instead of making facts clear (=transparent)? 81.210.207.99 (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we're here to be an effective encyclopedia. "Transparency" doesn't figure into the equation. Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The information is important; if anything should be changed it's the Wikipedia deletion criteria.  Two other parents of a notable figure who currently have Wikipedia entries, but who otherwise would not notable in and of themselves, are Barack Obama, Sr. and Ann Dunham.  Are you suggesting that their pages should also be deleted? Actually, have they met the "independent" Wikipedia criteria for entry?  "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  I think those entries should be maintained regardless of guidelines (remember, they are only guidelines), and it seems to me that if we'll be keeping entries on Barack Obama's parants, the entry for Rahm Emanuel's father should be maintained as well. User:Earpol Earpol (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if we have an article on Bill Clinton's father, shouldn't we have one on John Podesta's too? Moreover, a) Obama and Dunham are parents of a future President, not Chief of Staff, and b) they've received far more coverage than Emanuel. Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep.  Agreed about the need for more transparent and fair deletion criteria.  The last quote about Obama was all over the news.  This is relevant and current information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.28.128 (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Uttering a quote that gets "all over the news" does not entitle one to an encyclopedic biography. See WP:NOTNEWS. Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mostly because for a website whose mission is to promote free access to all information, not just relevant or politically expedient information, deletions are tantatmount to censorship and repression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.27.235 (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, we are not about "everything". And no one is trying to "censor" or "repress" anything! If an individual happens to want to know more about this minor figure, there's a little-known site he can appeal to. Biruitorul Talk 17:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So why bother having wikipedia at all if one can just search Google?DeadNative (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called division of labour: one is for topics that have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; the other for finding mentions of topics that have not (Benjamin Emanuel included). Biruitorul Talk 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to wager that the article on BE has more "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" than many WP pages. DeadNative (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said it was the Worst Article on Wikipedia -- just one whose subject lacks enough significant coverage to make him deserving of his own article. Biruitorul Talk 20:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's been disproven. Now go after actual cruft on this site. DeadNative (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do review WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - let's handle this one article at a time. Biruitorul Talk 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't suppress the truth.--Moosh88 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is trying to suppress 'the truth'; we're arguing over whether this article passes or fails Wikipedia's inclusion policies. If it does not, the information can be merged elsewhere rather than being lost. See also WP:Assume good faith. Terraxos (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If for no other reason than it is about the father of the new White House Chief of Staff. Though I do think that the article should be expanded.  Dorje (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do the fathers of any of these guys have articles? No, not even the fathers of Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Heck, not even the father of the upcoming VP, Joe Biden, has a page. Hint: you have to be notable on your own; having notable children is not enough. Biruitorul Talk 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge - see WP:COATRACK. This article is not really about Benjamin Emanuel, as evidenced by the fact that none of the sources provided are actually about him; it is a POV fork of Rahm Emanuel, designed to draw greater attention to his background and the 'pro-Israel' quote by his father. Everything in this article can (and should) be merged into Rahm Emanuel; Benjamin does not pass the notability test for an article in his own right. Terraxos (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - additionally, I note that this AFD seems to have attracted attention from several WP:SPAs. Out of the anonymous IPs commenting above, User:220.132.137.68, User:70.75.28.128 and User:67.62.27.235 have not made any edits outside of this AFD; and User:81.210.207.99 has only made a single edit elsewhere. I'm not saying their opinions should be discounted, but perhaps assigned slightly less weight by the closing admin. Terraxos (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it/merge it or make a copy on place where you want merge and then nobody would be afraid that deletion is because of suppression of truth. When info is on right place, then you can delete it as duplicate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.48.187.211 (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense, but I will only observe that no one is trying to "suppress the truth". We wouldn't have that ability even if we wanted to (ie, we don't control the websites of Ha'aretz, the New York Times, etc.). Biruitorul Talk 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The person wanting this deleted is obviously biased and is trying to hide something, perhaps a mossad or globalist agent? Articles on less known people with even less information are allowed to be kept all the time on wikipedia. I do agree that more contributions and information to this article would be helpful, it is the father of the new white house chief of staff after all. Vipercat (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, please retract those egregious allegations. Second, I never cited anything but Wikipedia policy in trying to get this deleted, so no, I'm neither "biased" nor "trying to hide something". Third, does the father of any other WH Chief of Staff (Cheney and Rumsfeld included) have an article? No. Biruitorul Talk 22:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Less than 24 hours after I created this page, you added the AfD tag. It doesn't speak well of your motives that you didn't even give the page a chance to evolve a little before adding your two cents. DeadNative (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Even two years on, the essential fact of Emanuel's non-notability would likely have remained the same. My "motives" are failure to meet WP:N - that's it! And it's a great motive to boot. Biruitorul Talk 00:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "My "motives" are failure to meet WP:N..."
 * A subjective call. BTW, who pointed this page out to you for AfD?DeadNative (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There seems to be a fanatical propagandist or 'agent' (at least one) with a vested interest in getting rid of this article. Read the script - this is not intended as an 'egregious allegation' - I would like to see Wikipedia recover/remain a trusted source of information. This is not the first time this has happened on Wikipedia, and it will not help any citizen in the world in the short or long run for suppression, and/or distortion, of information to rule. Wikipedia is respected as an encyclopedia, not as a propaganda platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joneve (talk • contribs)
 * Editor has already stated keep above. Khu kri  15:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a fanatical adherent of WP:N. Accusing me of being a propagandist, an agent or having a "vested interest in getting rid of this article" is absurd. I care not one way or the other about Dr Emanuel. I do, however, care that his biography does not belong here. Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete NN-bio, being a member of any organisation, no matter how contentious it may have been, does not automatically impart notability to the member, and being the father of someone notable again does not make the subject themselves notable. It does not meet WP:N and for those wanting to see "truth" please read the very first line of WP:V. And I will also comment there seems to be a varying lack of assumption of good faith on certain editors parts here, discussing subjects which are outside the remit of Wikipedia, the article and their involvement in it, and trying to imply certain positions to those who maybe in disagreement, when the subject at hand is literally the article itself and it's adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. So please keep the discussions on track.  Khu  kri  14:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as futile as this recommendation will be. Please, everyone, try to see past any political motivation here. This is a man who would not even have an article right now if his son was not the incoming White House Chief of Staff. All of the referenced articles are about Rahm, or about Rahm and his brothers; not one of them is about Benjamin. Parents do not inherit their child's notability; this is well-established precedent. Much more suspicious politically than Biruitorul's nomination is the creation of this article in the first place; it certainly has the appearance of being a POV fork of Rahm Emmanuel, designed solely to make sure the quotation is presented prominently. I am not recommending deletion for any partisan reason, save, perhaps for a desire to see partisan POV forks limited. Powers T 14:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Several references don't necessarily mandate notability: we need several references for him specifically. A single interview surely isn't enough, and tangential bits about him in sources about his sons don't do anything more than provide reliable sources for small bits of information on his sons' articles, as suggested by the nominator.  Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He was important in his own right in the Irgun and terrorism they brought to the many victims. This article needs more information added to make it a more detailed Biography. To remove it is to censor information that people have a right to access. There are many more weak bios out there that are better candidates for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahermit (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — Dahermit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As it stands this falls squarely into unverified hearsay, you may know it to be true, all around you may know it to be true, but if this is to be included it needs to be verifiable, reliably sourced, not original research and meet a number of other guidelines. It is very easy to bandy around the words censorship, but the core of wikipedia is about where the information comes from, if it meets the above guidelines then it has a good chance of swaying this AfD. But until such time people also have a right to access that they can trust to be reliable, not what certain quarters believe to be the truth. Khu  kri  15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. If you wish to exercise your right to access information on non-notable figures, use Google! No one is (or even can) "censoring" anything here. Biruitorul Talk 15:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The original comment says "Not notable as a mere member of the Irgun. Not notable as a pediatrician. Not notable as the father of three notable sons." All of those may be, but combined, he becomes notable and relevant. And being mentioned only in other articles would render the man one-dimensional, and the information disjointed. Dukeofwulf (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge contents (to the degree that they are at all notable enough) into Rahm Emanuel and delete this article. This is about the different between a general encyclopaedia and a genealogical project. Aspect of some notable person’s life (like a few sentences about a notable person’s parents) belongs in the article about that notable person, not in forked-off, separate articles. No information will be “hidden” that way. -- Olve Utne (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because for a website whose mission is to promote free access to all information, not just relevant or politically expedient information, deletions are tantatmount to censorship and repression. Nothing more to say. Smartcom5 (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I can only still quote this one:
 * Delete per WP:Coatrack as someone mentioned above. He is not notable in and of himself.  All refs given in the article relate to one quote he made in the last couple of days about his son's appointment.  That quote is already appropriately addressed in the Rahm Emanuel article. -- M P er el  00:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "All refs given in the article relate to one quote he made in the last couple of days..."

Tht's incorrect. Three of the articles, or almost half, reference Benjamin Emanuel before his infamous quote. One is from 1997, two are from 2006. DeadNative (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2008 (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.