Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Wishna


 * 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   speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and no Delete !votes - per WP:KEEP#1 (non-admin closure) Enfcer (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack Wishna

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete as hopeless public relations/propaganda. Numerous updates by user purporting to be subject. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- nomination withdrawn (see below). Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article in its current form is poor but not hopeless. A Google News search confirms that Wishna is notable. Every claim in the article needs to be referenced to a reliable source or removed, but that seems possible. Cullen328 (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article's creator was notified of this AFD. If he/she wishes to fix it, fine. That is his or her responsibility. I really cannot do so at this time, my hands are full. If no one wants make the positive edits needed to wikify the article then it should go. Have you seen all the banners posted (not by me, btw)? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already started to gather reliable sources in my sandbox and I will fix up the article. AfD is for articles that shouldn't exist, not for articles that need work. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but an article that is almost wholly self-promotional, with edits apparently made by the subject is a horse of a different color, IMO. Anyway, good luck with your enterprise. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I've completely rewritten the article, eliminated the puffery, and cited all claims to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cullen328 has done a masterful job. The article appears to be in accord with WP:BLP. I withdraw the nomination. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Subject meets Wikipedia notability standards, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2011 (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.