Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Ehrlich


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Ehrlich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Majority of references are works by author. Lack in-depth support for individual. red dogsix (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Coverage I find is all writings "by" the subject, not writings "about" the subject. Nothing in-depth that would support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass notability as either an academic or a government official.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - :This is false. Lots of independent coverage. For example, in English:
 * 1. BBC Newshour interview about personal history/work in Russia: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p046ghw4
 * 2. Coverage by Keith Morrison on NBC News: https://twitter.com/ClintEhrlich/status/775053414757728256
 * 3. Critical profile by Hayes Brown, BuzzFeed News World Editor: https://www.buzzfeed.com/hayesbrown/magazine-defends-pro-kremlin-piece
 * 4. Article by Steve Sailer in Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/isteve/justice-young-lawyers-pro-bono-work-frees-man-wrongfully-convicted-of-murder/
 * 5. Interview on Sputnik Radio: https://sputniknews.com/radio_loud_and_clear/201609191045394755-us-media-targets-russia/


 * Also LOTS of secondary-source foreign-language coverage:
 * https://ria.ru/world/20160908/1476403033.html
 * https://novocrimea.ru/crimea/578875.html
 * https://www.ridus.ru/news/231214.html
 * http://rueconomics.ru/195098-antirossiiskii-kurs-nuzhen-klinton-kak-trampu-pensne

Academic and gov official are *alternate* tests to the General Notability Guideline. If GNG is satisfied, they don't matter. GNG is satisfied here because there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. 83.220.239.4 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC) — 83.220.239.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP this article. This is a good page to maintain because the controversy of Russia threats in the 2016 Election has been covered by reputable sources like Foreign Policy and BBC Radio (three times) 2600:1012:B064:323C:A1B1:78F3:5B78:7C4 (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC). — 2600:1012:B064:323C:A1B1:78F3:5B78:7C4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Lacks non-trivial WP:SECONDARY sources. red dogsix (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP this article. This is a good article about an important individual who has been published in several reputable sources, including Foreign Policy.  This individual has also been interviewed by international media outlets, including the BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.131.19 (talk • contribs)  — 199.190.131.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Lacks non-trivial WP:SECONDARY sources. red dogsix (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP Dozens of reliable independent sources on subject. Some are huge outlets, like BBC. Not just trivial mentions. Was lead story on Newshour, plus two unfriendly bio pieces by journalists, etc. Many many international stories reacting to Ehrlich's writing about Hillary and Trump. Prior commenters are confused about what a secondary source is. The Foreign Policy op-ed by Ehrlich = primary source. The newspapers that then published articles about Ehrlich's views   = secondary sources. There are lots of them. Clearly very notable 93.159.238.248 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — 93.159.238.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Lacks non-trivial WP:SECONDARY sources. red dog<i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and close this Afd. I've tried my best to search for sources. Have to agree with the nom. A majority of sources are only the subject's reportage. The Afd can be closed now, discounting the spammy !votes above. Lourdes  10:56, 28 October 2016 (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.