Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schwadron


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Jack Schwadron

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG - a seemingly very hard working, decent and totally unremarkable person. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not too keen on the assertion made in this diff [] that my nomination was racially motivated. I have no clue (and wouldn't have, from the content of the article) of what Jack Schwadron's ethnicity was. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the attached guide on Articles for Deletion on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives

Your reason for deletion is an OPINION and is not a guideline listed by Wikipedia. You did not follow guideline C.2. "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article". You were so quick to jump to delete the article, when as you can see, I have since added a lot more information. You did not follow any of the suggested steps for guidelines of deleting an article.

If you read the article and did a search you would see that my citations are reliable and that I have been continuing to update with more information. If your deletion is not targeted then why were you so quick to nominate for deletion a second time when I removed the tag? If you did a simple search and read the article you would see that he is a notable person.

Other steps you did not follow before deletion nomination:

B. Carry out these checks 1.Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep. 2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.) 3.Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing. 4.Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with. 5.Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations before renominating. 6.Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia. 7.Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted 1. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. 2. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. 3. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as, , , or ; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. 4. If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability 1.The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Bookssearch, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. 2. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. 3. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include, , , and. For a more complete list see WP:CTT.

If you were concerned with notability, you should have searched for more sources and you would have found plenty of credible sources about Jack Schwadron. You were so quick to nominate for deletion without following any steps which is why your attack seems racially motivated based on other articles you have attempted to delete :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMusicBaby (talk • contribs)


 * I suspect Schwadron is possibly on the cusp of notability, just barely this book has several pages about him and it was written by Isadore Barmash who we should also probably have an article on. I am not confident enough in the few sources I found, however, to vote keep. Praxidicae (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Logs:


 * Keep: Given the recent improvements to the article and the apparent wider coverage of the subject, it looks to me as if it overcomes any problems of general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't have the time to unpick them all, but a number of these citations are problematic 4 and 7 are, I think, primary sources. 8 and 9 are a review of a book on particle physics (with no mention of or relevance to the subject), 35 is an obituary of Arthur Cohen with no mention of the subject whatsoever and many others, while they mention the subject are not ""Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail". While there are no subject-specific notability guidelines (I can find) for businesspeople, GNG tells us if: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." - Our subject qualifies for none of these. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

in this article, it says how Arthur Cohen was the co-founder of Arlen Realty & Development in 1959 and that serving as Arlen’s chairman, Cohen developed suburban shopping centers throughout the country.

https://rew-online.com/jp-morgan-funds-200m-loan-on-the-paramount-building/

In this article,in which Jack Schwadron is pictured alongside the Governor of Missouri, it says how Arlen Realty, of which Arthur Cohen was the chairman, was involved in the October 29, 1964 openings of the two Missouri E.J. Korvette stores,

https://www.stltoday.com/news/archives/oct-29-1964-korvettes-stores-open-with-great-fanfare-they-were-supposed-to-change-the/article_e0d2a87c-38d9-50f9-9c72-d05654770e8f.html

BigMusicBaby (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Admittedly I came across this article by chance, by following a search term for a redirect that needed to be linked. Schwadron seems to be notable per WP:GNG, but just barely, having been the president of several major department stores, and the subject is suitably sourced. There are a bunch of irrelevant factoids in there, such as March 1970, Francis Ford Coppola shot The Godfather scene between Michael Corleone and Kay Adams as they leave Best & Co. after shopping for Christmas gifts., which seems more suited for an article about Best & Co. itself, but that is not the point of this discussion. However, I do like to point out that some portions of this article, mostly the sheer number of quotes here, are trivial coverage. The only reason I'm !voting "keep" is because of his role as a major department store president, and even then, I'm not totally convinced that the current sourcing is sufficient. epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple New York Times references in the article about subject's career demonstrate notability.  // Timothy ::  talk  12:00, 21 November 2020 (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.