Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sieradski


 * 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. The consensus below is that there are sufficient sources to establish notability and that other outstanding issues can be dealt with via the ordinary editorial process. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Sieradski

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Due to COI and Notability issues. As it states in the COI guidelines, "do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." As one editor has noted in the talk page, "27 edits were made anonymously by someone from the JTA's IP address while the subject was employed there." There is also an issue of Notability. With regard to the notability guidelines, the article seems to be full of original research. Also some sources (eg. "Jewish Socialist") may not be considered reliable. Each singular event presented in the article is generally from one source of information, each with very few (if any) secondary sources. Many of the links and sources are clearly not independent of the subject at hand (eg. created for purposes self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, etc.) **My apologies if I might have done this wrong. This is the first time for me to try nominating an article for deletion. Anything anyone can do to help me clean this up, would be appreciated. Getitrightfolks (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * — Getitrightfolks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per nom. Neutral - COI alone isn't a basis for deletion. Cleanup does seem more appropriate per later comments below. B.Rossow talk contr 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm always suspicious of nominators whose sole (listed) contribs are in connection with the article nominated for AfD. There seems to be a distinct COI involved here, and a lot of work by the nominator on the article. Apart from that, the article as it stands looks OK to me. Source material is sometimes difficult to get from totally neutral places - the more contentious the subject often the more difficult. I would regard the subject as being notable enough - more so than many of the martial arts fighters, porn 'stars' and minor rappers (chosen as examples only) that get articles. Yes, I do know that there is a rule that because A has an article, it doesn't mean B should. There's also a rule that the length of time an article has been up should be disregarded, so the four years this has been here are irrelevant. Peridon (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification I should stress that I find COI more in the nomination than in the article... Peridon (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject passes WP:BIO, with coverage in the Forward and Jewish Week, among others. COI is not a reason to delete; article might need cleanup, but nominating on the basis of COI is misguided. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't speak to the COI aspect, but there's no question in my mind that in terms of notability, he qualifies. He was invited to speak in front of the General Assembly 2 years ago, and that's a major accomplishment in and of itself. He also is well-known in progressive circles, and as an IT person, for Federations and other Jewish organizations. And his writing is notable and has itself been covered in bigger venues.
 * — Rebmoti (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Neutral Delete He was indeed invited to speak in front of the General Assembly but so were others who do not have Wikipedia entries. My issue isn't with Sieradski himself, but rather with the fact that the entry was mostly authored by him. I think he's somewhat notable, but he has to stop editing the entry when people try to add in sourced and accurate biographical information that he doesn't like. Wrongtired18 (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification I changed my mind for the following reasons. Most of the acclaim he has received was as a result of his involvement with the Jewschool blog: look at the dates. He hasn't been involved with them for 2 years now and he can be considered more of a formerly notable blogger. His organization Matzat does not have a web site and there is every indication that he was the "Director" and sole employee - basically a freelance Web designer with a portfolio of non-profit organizations. His work as an activist is either un-sourced or of limited notability. His concert for Lebanon raised "about $1000" and his Gaza demonstration attracted "under 50 people" according to the very sources cited. For the past two years he has worked at the JTA and now at Repair the world in what are essentially middle management type positions. If Sieradski is notable then so are dozens and dozens and dozens of other Jewish and other bloggers who have had as much, if not more of an impact than he has. Wrongtired18 (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that notability is not temporary. If there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish him as notable, it doesn't matter that he no longer holds the role that made him notable. As for those other bloggers, if it's true that they are equally notable, then perhaps they should have articles as well. It's not a zero-sum competition. --RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then let me be really, really clear. I don't think he is or ever was sufficiently notable. Yes he's had coverage in the parochial Jewish press, but I don't believe that everyone that receives coverage from The Jewish Week or the Forward is notable. If so Wikipedia could legitimately be flooded by articles about individuals whose accomplishments are extremely limited. Twenty years from now is anyone going to care about a concert fundraiser that the organizers described as disappointing that raised around $1000? Are we going to care about a rally that drew under 50 people? Then we have or had links to a Tikkun Magazine interview that is only online on Mr. Sieradski's blog, a Jewish Standard interview that is also only online on Mr. Sieradski's blog, a B'nai Brith Magazine article that isn't online anywhere, and an article that put him in the company of 36 other young Jewish individuals with a potential to make some changes. It was mentioned here also that 2 years ago Mr. Sieradski spoke at the General Assembly. Please note that this is the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities, not the United Nations, and he was one of 7 speakers featured in that session. There are so many other elements in this article that are unsourced that once all of those are taken out, very little of any significance remains. Consequently I have no choice but to call for the deletion of this entry. Wrongtired18 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The fact that an article appeared in a national magazine is relevant even if the article "isn't online anywhere" or if it's "only online on [the subject's] blog" (see WP:Convenience link). You see, there are amazing places called libraries where people can go to look up back issues of printed magazines. Anyway, that Tikkun interview that's "only online on Mr. Sieradski's blog" is also available on Tikkun's website, which makes me wonder how much truth there is in your other assertions. — Malik Shabazz 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I couldn't however help but notice the selective quoting of said Tikkun article. Both you and Mr. Sieradski cited the quote as if it said that Sieradski was at the time "one of the most recognized Jewish literary voices on the Internet." The actual quote was that Mr. Sieradski was "Fast becoming one of the most recognized Jewish literary voices on the Internet." It's perhaps a subtle distinction, but there is a difference between one's potential, which the Tikkun Magazine article cited and the impression that said potential had already been accomplished, which your edits implied. Thank you for the clarification. As to my other assertions that are now suspect, I took them directly from the sources cited in the article. For instance, Mr. Sieradski's Lebanon fundraiser that raised "about $1000" - that's a direct quote from the article cited, which also mentioned the disappointment of the three organizers. My other assertion was that "50 people at the most" participated in Sieradski's Gaza war rally, that too was a direct quote from the article cited. As far as notability goes, I doubt I can find B'nai Brith Magazine at my local library for although it is glossy it's more of a glorified newsletter sent to members of B'nai Brith. Other acclaim earned by Sieradski came from his home state Jewish paper, the New Jersey Jewish Standard. The article referenced points to a broken link on Sieradski's former blog and a search on the Jewish Standard Web site returns no results for an article written by Stephen I. Weiss. Are there any other assertions that I have made that you feel are suspect? I have sources for all of them. I still feel Sieradski is not sufficiently notable, but those of you who feel he is, please, when editing his article, at least have the courtesy of not putting in broken links, and make at least some effort at presenting information in an unbiased manner. Wrongtired18 (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * — Wrongtired18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Also, please note the canvassing issues and possible vote stacking happening here. Please note, my guess is that "Rebmoti" probably came here as a response to this, since he has no other contributions to the project.  --Getitrightfolks (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * — Getitrightfolks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * DeleteNotability. I haven't read anything that is notable enough for Wikipedia.  If you have to create and maintain your own wikipedia page - you're not Notable enough.  Its not bad to not be notable, I'm not notable either :/  --AdamHyman (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2009 (PST)
 * — Adamhyman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. COI is obviously a problem for this article, but as other editors have pointed out, COI is not in itself a reason for deletion. Coverage of the subject by respectable publications like The Forward and Tikkun seems to establish sufficient notability for an article. --RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Seems to meet notability criterion. More than enough mainstream sources about Sieradski. The fact that there has been a COI problem in the past is not a reason for deletion. Nor is the fact that Sieradski has either failed to read our basic guidelines for acceptable behavior on Wikipedia or has read them and apparently doesn't care. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject meets WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz 21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, only a couple of secondary sources which are unclear if independant of the subject. The others sources in the article are from non-RS blogs and other NN sites. Perhaps in the future if their is something notable from this person, but someone who has created a couple of blogs and worked for a news organization is not. --Shuki (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously? So is the Christian Science Monitor not notable, or is it unclear if it is independent of the subject? Same question for Editor & Publisher, Tikkun, The Jerusalem Post, The Jewish Week and The Forward. I can understand discounting a couple of the cited articles because the coverage is primarily about an event he helped organize rather than himself personally, but other items are profiles and interviews, which clearly constitute direct coverage of the subject by reliable sources. --RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I see lots of drama surrounding this article, on both sides (I was not canvassed; I had no idea who the guy was when I arrived here).  What else do I see?  This article has been around about 4 years now.  I also see numerous news hits about the subject, and many seem significant about this 2004 "Jooglebomb" event (clearly Jew puns surround this guy, "Jewcy"? haha), including  (cnet referencing his "influential Web log Jewschool").  There also appear to be other news articles as well about other events, [] (2006 event), so the notability threshold is met.  Article should be improved, but deletion discussion is a time waster. --Milowent (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral Although we are neutral, we would not go so far as to suggest that this individual warrants wikipedia notoriety. Much of the commentary in the original wiki entry was a bit slanderous and inflammatory, and we have observed very condescending and offensive tweets from this individual's twitter account @mobius1ski. That same account as well as @JIDF have been used in the last few days to canvass support for this individuals' wiki. This individual may be somewhat notable, but the edits and entries in the wiki need to be more truthful and accurate. Intelcenter (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * — Intelcenter (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep per Milowent. MuffledThud (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Milowent that there's too much drama on this page coming in from off-wiki, but ignoring all of that it does seem that he meets WP:N. The article may or may not be overly promotional, but that can and should be fixed if the subject meets our threshold for inclusion. --  At am a  頭 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources provided by Milowent are passing mentions, so they do not establish notability. However, this article from the Christian Science Monitor provides nontrivial coverage about Sieradski, so there is some notability. There are also this article and this article from The New York Post but they appear to be coverage of a single event. I can find little biographical details about Sieradski. This person is marginally notable, so I will go with weak keep. Cunard (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2009 (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.