Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Mokotoff


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Gary Mokotoff

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by the subject. He certainly has a lot of awards and so on from organizations he founded or of which he's a board member. Passing mention in a NYT article. EEng 01:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep While it's true that this article was created by the subject, the article was created back in 2005 and has been substantially changed by other editors to the point where it, in my opinion, can no longer be considered an autobiography. Looking through the article, I'm seeing a bit more achievement-wise than just awards from organizations he's affiliated with and a mention in the New York Times, so I think a cleanup may be more appropriate. Aspening (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , the achievements don't count unless there's significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Can you point to the sources satisfying WP:GNG? Everywhere you look there are self-written bios, passing mentions, awards from organizations run by the subject, and sources that don't mention the subject at all. EEng 08:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes GNG / NAUTHOR. Not an autobio - very little of the content is actually authored by GaryMokotoff (who did create the initial small page, and has made a few corrections/changes over the years - but over 90% is other users).Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Passes WP:GNG / WP:NAUTHOR based on what sources? EEng</b> 11:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides mentions of his works, see - .Icewhiz (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The first is a 10-paragraph profile of a company of which the subject is the founder, and the others are passing mentions. Which specific prong of NAUTHOR is met, and in what way? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV in multiple publications over the course of many years, and per being the founder of a notable organization and co-author of Daitch–Mokotoff Soundex. Nom, perhaps you are unaware that it is not necessary to meet category guidelines such as WP:AUTHOR, if a chap meets WP:GNG, and this one does.  That said, some assertions on the page lack sources.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Duh, of course I'm aware of GNG. Someone above said he met AUTHOR, so I specifically asked about that. I am now asking for the nth time for someone to explicitly point to the sources meeting any notability guideline, whether that be GNG or any other. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SIGCOV as developer of Daitch–Mokotoff Soundex and author of multiple notable books in field of genealogy including Where Once We Walked; agree that better sources needed for some parts, however, that is not a reason to delete the article but rather a challenge to improve it. Chefallen (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep based on his work as an author in the field, as well as his development of a phonetic algorithm for surnames, all of which is backed by reliable and verifiable sources about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please list the sources qualifying for notability? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * revisiting When an editor argues this hard for a position opposite to the one I have taken, I tend to doubt my judgment and revisit. In this case, the sourcing that comes up in searches is persuasive.  Yes, the article needs trimming, yes it needs improvement, yes there are a lot of dead links and a lot of PRIMARY sourcing.  But  WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP.  That said, I have added a couple of sources that solidly support notability to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for taking the time, but I'm still at a loss to identity the qualifying sources amid what I'm sure you'll agree is a large list of sources which do not contribute to notability. I'd appreciate it if you'd take the trouble to list the three or four sources you feel most strongly lend notability. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.