Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gersh Kuntzman (3rd 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 keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Gersh Kuntzman
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject of article does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and WP:RS requirements, nor the extended BLP requirements BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 22:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Person may not have been notable when the other two discussions happened in 2012 but the continual news stories that talk about his comments make him notable now. --Majora (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * comment: I agree with you.--連綿 (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. He may not have been notable earlier on, but he is now. The article has been under constant attack from people with (based on their edits) obvious right-wing sympathies for a long time now (see page history and protection log...), trying to insult and discredit Kuntzman in every way, adding tags questioning Kuntzman's notability etc etc, and I see this nomination as just another attempt to discredit him. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to, I nominated this page for deletion because both previous nominations gained no consensus. Furthermore, one could make the argument that the only way he's notable at all is because of his inflammatory remarks, eg: the ambassador deserved to die, or the ptsd remark. Nonetheless, those events are passing in nature, and non-notable, due to their lack of lasting impact. Finally, I'd advise you to avoid ad-hominem attacks and speculations on editor's motivations. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with { {re 09:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. He may not have been notable a few years ago but he is notable now  Flow 234 (Nina)   talk  11:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:21, 4 January 2017 (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.