Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey Manger-Weil


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Harvey Manger-Weil

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Non notable person Wuh  Wuz  Dat  17:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  There are several solid references within the article that show his notability as an unusual entrepeneur who has achieved success in a variety of notable ventures. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of BLP that we need. Cullen328 (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my keep and now recommend delete Based on sockpuppetry, COI and attempts to game the system. Thanks to the editors who delved more deeply.Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * NHEA Journal seems made up of whole cloth to promote Manger-Weil. I apologize for my gullibility.Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Would agree that there is enough sourcing to prove notability, at least as far as the College Wizard and as a professional photographer, and that should be enough to satisfy WP:BIO. If it had even more sourcing, would be even better.— Wolfstorm000 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on College Wizard work, satisfies criteria: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique -- that concept/technique being a method for tutoring students in how to significantly improve their SAT score in only five lessons.  Manger-Weil's work has received recognition in numerous secondary sources. WP:BIO(TRothschild) 20:15, 3 December 2010 — TRothschild (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy Delete as promotional. First. I cannot verify the key reference for him as an educator. The JHEAS article resembles a press release--the wording there is indistinguishable from that of an advertisement. If one thought this a professional journal, that would be peculiar, but it is only what what be expected when one realises there is no such association and, as far as I can determine, no such journal. I know there's a web site --but it gives no information about the purported association or publication--and the other items there look equally promotional. See the google searches  and follow the links that look real, and you will see they are talking about other groups. The NEA site does not mention it; none of the lists of higher educational associations I have seen include it. Worldcat shows no such title, whether searching by full title, organization name, or acronym. As conclusive evidence, Ulrich's does not list it under any combination of words. Second.  the other sources refer to him as a wedding photographer. The apparently best of them is the one in the Jewish Times., ; it is also not a reliable publication-=-at this point it is just the website  with even an ISSN; worldCat shows a number of publications of this title from various cities, but none of them match this title--I have no doubt it was once a real newspaper, but I do not think I would now call it one.  (Ulrichs shows only an unrelated  publication of the same name from Canada.) Not surprisingly, the item is based entirely upon what he says about himself and is thus neither independent nor reliable. In conclusion. I have no confidence in any of the content in the article. It may not be a hoax,  but is certainly is an unverifiable BLP dependent for sourcing on unreliable press releases. Again as  might be expected, T Rothschild who commented just above, is also the only substantial author, and this is his only contribution. I congratulate him on his skill in constructing an apparently impressive structure out of very little, but though we do not always look as closely as we should at the sources, this cannot be relied on. What struck my attention is a/ that I had never heard of the association, and it's my special field of interest, and 2nd/ that I tend to be inquisitive about articles on people who have done things in a variety of different unrelated subjects. there are a few true polymaths in the world, but the odds are always against it.  and need I mention my point that it is not the totally unsourced BLPs that are the real problems. A very good catch by  WuhWuzDat.  I'll let some other admin close and deal with the contributor.   DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what DGG has found and what I myself found after looking even deeper into the pages cited, it would appear to be a well constructed promo article. It may not necessarily be self-promoting, no way to truly link the author to the person in question, put after finding that the email contact in the Extraordinary Bride article is TRothschild and doing a search for the person Sandy Levine who supposedly wrote the article for the JNHEA and not being able to find any other work by this person, but finding a name match for a PR person, I would retract my earler vote and vote Speedy delete. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I wouldn't go quite to the lengths that DGG did to analyse it, but lack of notability is obvious. The writer of the article has made a mountain of a molehill in trying to make it seem encyclopedic but his claims like "began volunteering as District Enrollment Director for Dartmouth College" tell it all... . One of several thousand such articles which litter wikipedia and should be deleted and left with true encyclopedic subjects and truly notable people... This is indeed a profound example of how "unsourced BLPs" are NOT the biggest problem on wikipedia. They are easily assessed and can quickly be sourced.  It is similar articles like these which are sourced and misleading/stretching the truth to glorify the individual as notable and often going undetected because people think "oh it is sourced, must be fine".♦  Dr. Blofeld  12:58, 5 December 2010 (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.