Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James G. Lindsay


 * 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.

In closing this discussion, I discount the "keep" opinions of Wikifan12345 (so as not to encourage the battleground-style conduct exhibited in the first comment) and Shuki (no policy-based argument). I also discount the "delete" opinions of Grace Note (argumentum ad hominem) and Bali ultimate (overly brief), as well as the "merge" opinion of Dlabtot (just a vote).

This leaves us with a rough headcount of delete 7, delete/redirect 2, merge/redirect 3, move 1 and keep 3.5 (0.5 being the "weak keep"). Reviewing this count in the light of the arguments presented, I find a consensus against retaining an article dedicated to this man at this time, because most here feel that all coverage of him relates to the report he wrote, as does almost all of the article, which makes an article about him inappropriate per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.

Several editors have proposed merging (and hence redirecting) a part of the content to UNRWA, but this seems to already have been done to some degree. Accordingly, I am deleting the article, but will make the content available in the event that there is serious interest in merging additional content to UNRWA (subject to consensus there, of course).  Sandstein  08:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

James G. Lindsay

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Almost the entire article is devoted to Lindsay's opinions of the UNRWA, no claim of notability outside of having published a critique of the UNRWA is made. Everything in the article could go in to the UNRWA article; the entirety of the biographical information in the article is the lead and the single line on military service and education. Nableezy (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom Nableezy (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  —Nableezy (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (merging any useful material to UNRWA first). Doesn't seem notable enough for own article (and by the by bio info is dangerously close to copyvio of the sources). Rd232 talk 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions.  — ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  — ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep seems more than just a run of the mill clerk BUT I might be wrong. In any case, undue weight given to that report in this BLP article. Make more consise and move that to UNWRA. --Shuki (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong, Strong, Strong Keep LOL. Heads up everyone: Me and Nableezy are currently in a dispute over Charities accused of ties to terrorism. The dispute has been roadblocked with both of us accusing each other of edit warring and POV-pushing. Nableezy has seen the James Lindsay before, never edited it, and never voiced any concerns at . Therefore, I personally consider this a violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If there are specific concerns about the article, it should be first addressed in talk. Going straight to AFD (especially considering our relationship Nableezy) is beyond suspect. Obviously the AFD will be 50/50 because bio in question is by a person who isn't a fan/supporter/fencer of Hamas or Palestinians in general. All answers and questions should be argued in talk. Not in AFD, at least not yet. I am wiling to discuss any and all disputes, but again that's for talk. I encourage a strong "no consensus" and/or immediate close so we can solve issues in talk. If problems remain, and nothing is changing, AFD seems like a logical conclusion. But it is my opinion Nableezy has no concern about the article and the timing of our feud cannot be a coincidence. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment- WF, one thing has nothing to do with the other, you need to stop making this about me and you. I don't care enough about you to plan my moves around what you may think. Let it go, make your points and leave my username out of it. I stated why I think it should be deleted, thats it. Nableezy (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nab, you're not fooling anyone. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have wanted to delete this article since it was created, I gave you time to bring it up to standards, which I feel you have not done as you have not established notability, and then proposed deletion. This has nothing to do with anything else. Nableezy (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well sorry, but I don't stalk every edit you make on wikipedia. I know why you want to trash this article, which explains your utter failure for going to talk or heck, even editing the article. Other editors such as Ceed, Cerejota, and Tundra had no problem doing so. C-o-l-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-i-o-n. Not, "delete articles that violate my POV." Even so, timing is key. I doubt many will buy the idea that you were AGF. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

''
 * Comment Information pertinent to the UNRWA has been merged with the article and Palestinian refugee. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider.   There is no question regarding notability.  The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He doesn't seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC, not least because he isn't one (the Institute is just a thinktank). And categorisation is irrelevant to notability; what evidence is there that he passes WP:BIO? Rd232 talk 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wrong. James G. Lindsay passes the following guideslines
 * 6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.''
 * Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a major force in the I/P conflict and general Middle Eastern issues. Dismissing it as it's "just a thinktank," is dare I say, incredibly ignorant. If preferred, remove the Academic category. I won't fight.
 * 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * If we consider the "thinktank" an "academic institution" (bear with me here), his involvement outside far exceeds. Being the head attorney of the UNRWA is major, especially when that head leaves on a bad note. Perhaps my logic is flawed, but yours is misguided. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, these kinds of complaints a rather minor. Your concern boils down to a "dubious" category. Solution? Remove it. Guess where these kinds of complaints are expected to go? TALK. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, multiple noes. From Washington Institute for Near East Policy: a "Washington, DC-based think tank". Not only that, but it was founded by "Martin Indyk, a research director for AIPAC" - not exactly a university spinoff, is it? Ergo he's not an academic. His position at UNRWA preceded his Institute appointment, so it can hardly be an impact "in his academic capacity". And I don't care about the categorisation at this point, we're discussing whether the article should be deleted or not. In any case, even if we were to accept him as an academic, he would still fail notability on that point - see WP:ACADEMIC note 13 clarifying the meaning of the Criterion 6 you quote above: "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution". Finally, per Scopus he has no academic publications that I can see. Rd232 talk 04:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Still disagree, however I suggest the dispute be merged with talk to avoid derailment of AFD. If this is your argument for deletion, I rest my case. I agree the article hardly resembles the typical-academic bio, so a removal of the category "American academics" seems logical pending a more thorough discussion. But, again, this has little to do with the AFD. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense: the article is proposed for deletion on grounds of notability. It is countered that he is a notable academic. I'm explaining he is not an academic and certainly not a notable academic. How exactly is that not relevant to this AFD? Rd232 talk 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This article, for example, in the Jewish Standard speaks to the issue of making "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."  He is interviewed as an expert on UNWRA in this article, in relation to enforcement of the U.S. 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As explained above he's not an academic (he has no academic, peer reviewed publications). He could still be considered to meet the general notability guidelines if there was substantial coverage of him. There doesn't seem to be. Rd232 talk 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Move. Given his report has received answer from the UNRWA itself, it has become notorious. It is even stated it should received new ones. More, it seems that this person is notorious (maybe not reliable but that is not the point) concerning this organisation. I would suggest to slighlty modify to content and to move to James Lindsay's report about UNRWA. Ceedjee (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The report plays a pivotal rule in the article, but it isn't the article. I don't see how we could possibly craft an article like "James Lindsay's report about the UNRWA." It seems extremely silly when what we have is basically the same thing with relevant character info and relationships beyond the UNRWA. Plus, the major parts of the report which explicitly judge the UNRWA are currently in the UNRWA article (linked above). It makes no sense to create a new article that would likely end up being just a content fork of the UNRWA section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I think more information should be found/added about Lindsay because he is on the edge for what concerns his notoriaty... Eg, his predecessors and successors at his posts don't have articles (have they ?). If he is notorious only his report, that makes things hard... Ceedjee (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By virtue of being one of the few employees (former or otherwise) of the UNRWA to criticize the organization establishes notoriety. That is the hook, factor in UN response, etc...it paints a nice pretty picture of reasonable notoriety. The lead speaks for itself. And if I recall, claim of notoriety was made the moment of creation. We had a thorough discussion in talk which resulted in a general consensus. Since then, the article has been edited and improved. If there were concerns about moving/merging/deleting, it should have been made in talk. Frick, why am I even responding. Nab should be blocked for crap like this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to propose a Notoriety guideline, feel free. For now, we have Notability. Rd232 talk 13:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For nominating an article for deletion that I do not think meets the standards? Please keep the discussion on topic, if you have a problem with me take it to an admin noticeboard. Nableezy (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about no. You don't like what I say, get an admin. I've responded to each and every little "concerns" here, something you haven't done. I'm just too lazy to send you off to the noticeboards, and to be honest this is actually kind of entertaining. If you plan on solidifying your efforts to disrupt and complete your quest to obtain Boss-level status, I suggest asking for the opinion of admin User:William M. Connolley. He really likes me. A lot. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That attitude is extremely unhelpful. Leave your personal dispute out of this, it is disrupting an AFD, which regardless of eventual outcome, is nominated for concerns not prima facie unreasonable, even if you disagree with them. Rd232 talk 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Rd232 talk 13:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This AFD is unreasonable. I will add just once, I believe this has been attempt to distract myself from the on-going dispute at Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Anyways, You didn't seem to have a problem with Nableezy's behavior and disruptive tactics. I suggest you take a look at Nableezy's recent history and read this: Gaming the system. Back to the AFD: Your claims of academic notoriety are reasonable. Yet they are hardly a putting excuse for deletion. There is one reference to him being an academic, and that is in the category section. I cannot believe we spent 3 paragraphs arguing over the simplest of concerns. Minor disputes like those should be dealt with in the talk discussion. The question of notoriety was already discussed in the talk section. Any other concerns? Have we not italicized enough keywords? Maybe we should delete the article because of that....: ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The AFD is not, per se, unreasonable, regardless of the context of personal disputes I neither know nor care about. Your "prior discussion" link is essentially you arguing he's notable because of UNRWA, a point you haven't made here and which I doubt flies past WP:N without WP:RS; and others not agreeing with you. PS Your sarcasm is not helpful, and the issue is not "notoriety" but "notability". Show it, instead of rejecting/disrupting the AFD process. PPS Deleting a bio for lack of notability of the subject has little relevance for any other articles that may rely on reports written by the subject. Many, if not most references used on WP are authored by people who don't have WP bios. Rd232 talk 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is...per se, unreasonable. I believe you really don't understand the article, because this was your first claim: "(merging any useful material to UNRWA first). Doesn't seem notable enough for own article (and by the by bio info is dangerously close to copyvio of the sources)." A) Information petinent to the UNRWA (directly) is in the UNRWA article. As is his commentary on Palestinian refugees. Following this concern, you said he wasn't an academic and inferred that is why the article should be deleted. A) That is silly, because the article is not written based on whatever academia he has been involved in. And B) The only 100% provable reference to academia is in the category section. So, now you want to go into a long pointless debate into notability which has been exhausted? Please. Nableezy and you should have gone to talk. No concerns were made, his submission for this to be deleted started right after our feud. Like, 20 mins later. You as an admin should at least recognize that and failure to do so reflects your objectivity. Sorry. Hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings here, but it seems people can get away with a lot of crap before something happens. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For the last time: articles that do not demonstrate notability of the subject may be deleted. This is what the AFD process is for. If you want to keep the article, then argue for the subject's notability, with relevant sources. If you're unable or unwilling to do so, your participation here is a waste of everyone's time. Rd232 talk 21:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Since you've willingly ignored your actions, I'll continue. Here's Nableezy's rationale, I'm breaking it down for simplification: "Almost the entire article is devoted to Lindsay's opinions of the UNRWA." Incorrect. Lead provides info of his leadership role in Multinational Force and Observers. Also includes information in his relationship with Washington Institute for Near East Policy. First section is typical stuff, education, military experience...not particularly notable. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Lindsay#Opinion_of_the_UNRWA 3rd section. Definitely defines the article. Section relates to a report we all know and want to put under the rug]. Report is extremely notable, having been influential towards recognizing the Palestinian refugee problems. Report was notable enough to warrant a from the United Nations Article is sourced by several reputable references, such as BBC, United Nations, CNN, and the Jerusalem Post. A nearly similar convo took place here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_G._Lindsay#notability notability, talk. I don't see your or Nableezy's name there]. If you want to drag this out even more please do. I just love roadblocks that disrupt collaboration, especially ones that are supported by administrators. ''no claim of notability outside of having published a critique of the UNRWA is made. Everything in the article could go in to the UNRWA article; the entirety of the biographical information in the article is the lead and the single line on military service and education.'' Basically same complaint but longer. Clearly you have under-stated the importance of the UNRWA and how it provides notability. Here is a closely-related person, Peter Hansen (UN). Does that lack notability? Aside from his involvement with the UNRWA, everything else is irrelevant...:D Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of that is repetition of irrelevance and point-missing which I'll ignore, having more than adequately addressed it before. I'll respond to your comparison with Peter Hansen (UN) by pointing out that Hansen was Commissioner-General, which is considered a diplomatic post, while Lindsay was merely general counsel. Rd232 talk 22:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I missed another point you buried in there, which seems to be Report Is Notable So He Should Have A Bio. But see WP:BLP1E. Rd232 talk 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice dismissal. Of course, "merely general counsel." You've also had a pre-determined response, so I will no longer spend (waste) my time to generalized criticisms. I proved why the article is notable and why the claim regarding academics was totally over-stated and completely irrelevant to AFD. I've discovered a couple spelling errors. Shall we delete the article? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, nice. Helpful. Rd232 talk 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Update Nableezy has accused me of canvassing in regards to this AFD. I didn't. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see why. But your subsequent explanation to him sounds reasonable (Canvassing). Rd232 talk 23:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how unaware you have portrayed yourself in relation to this AFD and the articles in general, it's not surprising. Notifying all major editors involved in the article is not canvassing. Picking and choosing Palestinian/Israeli editors exclusively is. Ceed wouldn't be here if not for my notice. Whatever, this AFD has acted as a badge of shame for far too long. Nableezy is no longer involved and should feel lucky he will likely face no consequences for his persistent disruption and hounding. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Posting on a number of talk pages looks like canvassing (WP:DUCK). Your explanation is reasonable that it wasn't (per distinction with friendly messages in WP:CANVAS). Good grief, you can't even let it go when I agree with you! And is there any chance that you might delete your Nableezy-related comments from this AFD as an irrelevant distraction? Rd232 talk 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mis-read your response. This entire AFD is a joke, so no. Since you are an admin I'm sure there is some rule you could whip out that would force mt to remove the comments. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. There is actually (well, to justify me doing it for you, anyway): WP:IAR. Rd232 talk 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * When Nab strikes his malicious/false/irrelevant posts, I'll respond in kind. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, since you seem so concerned about notability...I suggest you check out 2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair. You've been involved in the talk from what I understand. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Involved"? I made one comment (someone asked me too, I forget who or why), saying it was a violation of WP:NOT, i.e. should really be deleted/merged. What's your point exactly? Rd232 talk 00:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Proportionally speaking, your concern is suspect. It's pretty obvious Lindsay is not a strong candidate for deletion, yet you've taken a fairly hardline in making it happen. But in the IDF article you showed little intention or willingness to get involved in the AFD. Trying to connect the dots here...Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Read my comment there, it should be clear. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And if you want to nominate that other article, I'll probably support delete/merge. Rd232 talk 01:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To end this, you've made a strong effort to over-state minor issues (academic question) while dismissing major ones (He was "merely" general counsel of the UNRWA") which don't seem like compelling arguments for delete. Anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to address the issue at hand, which is whether the subject is notable enough to have a separate bio (WP:N). I can't help it that you've already made up your mind and that my failing to agree with you upsets you. Rd232 talk 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment It may not be against the rules but I think it's really inappropriate to couch in secondary responses/claims above an editors response. It makes it very difficult for me to keep up and is poor editing manners from my POV. Here is a response I missed because of that: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_G._Lindsay&diff=284905412&oldid=284904813 Apologies, I missed another point you buried in there, which seems to be Report Is Notable So He Should Have A Bio. But see] BLP1E. I think we've become highly dependent on rules to provide rationale while avoiding actual argument which ironically meet the standards of Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. In response to your point, it is your interpretation that Lindsay's notability solely rest on a "report." This is extremely unfair categorization. Lindsay isn't this person. Lindsay has been covered by BBC, CNN, UN, JP, etc. He has had a long career in the US government and UN programs aside from the UNRWA. Please, my rationale extends for paragraphs while you simply continue with refuted guidelines. Methinks this AFD is ideology driven rather than concern for the article. What's next? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about not making claims as to others motives and actually respond to the issues. All the coverage is on one thing, or one event, the report on the UNRWA. Can you show how being general counsel for the UNRWA meets notability guidelines? How about not clogging up this discussion with pointless nonsense? That would be a good idea for what's next. Nableezy (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much of the substantial discussion relates to whether he's a notable academic or not. Conclusion: no. Now if you want to elaborate something based on general notability (WP:N) then you need to show substantial secondary media coverage of him (not of the report). Rd232 talk 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, another couched comment. Almost missed it Rd. This "substantial discussion" was initiated by you. The academic argument is valid in its own right, but it is not a major concern in terms of the AFD. You over-stated its importance, which I exposed several times. While this AFD is loaded with fallacies, yours is most obvious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this coatrack. Pretty standard lawyer with a gripe and no wider notoriety. Oh and LOL that heading a wingnut thinktank makes one an academic! Grace Note (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "head" the institute? He's not even a permanent staff member! Calling it "wingnut", though, is hardly helpful. Rd232 talk 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to say I agree with Wikifan's argument re notability. I believe there is also something in WP about not shutting out minority views, not sure where exactly. The concept must hold across WP, not just within articles.  There are plenty of highlighted "general counsels" and other academics that support the common narrative regarding Palestine & UNWRA.  Lindsay is important because he does not. Notoriety is a form of notability. See for example Jack the Ripper & Boston Strangler or Lyndon LaRouche. Lindsay is sought as for expert opinion by reliable sources such as the Jewish Standard above. (I also support Wikifan's take that Nableezy did this as an attempt to punish him for his position in that article, but that's another issue) Also want to distance myself from any suggestions of bad faith in relation to Rd232.  While I may not always agree with  him, I don't see bad faith here.   Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If there are other bios that don't pass notability, then AFD them. We do not have bios on people of one persuasion because there are bios on people of another; WP:NPOV doesn't work that way and WP:N doesn't either. Views should be represented in the articles for which they are relevant (which for Lindsay's views is already the case). Rd232 talk 15:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The view should be represented, which is why I said the information about the report should be placed in its appropriate article (the UNRWA article). But does having a minority viewpoint make someone notable for an article about that person? I am not going to respond to beliefs as to my motives except to say you, nor anybody else besides me, knows why I do what I do. If you have a complaint about me take it up in the appropriate venue. Nableezy (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Who says this is a minority view? It certainly is within the UNRWA, if that is what you are saying. Notability has been proven and this "minority viewpoint" is yet another detraction from thorough rationales. If I have a complaint about you, I'll put it right in front of your nose. Someone else can do the tattle-telling. Count your blessings, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Rationale behind Coatrack accusation? I've spent (wasted) a lot of time responding to every law/guideline users have listed in support of deleting the article, so I say we change sides. I think another defining *gasp* law-violating quality should be substantiated beyond editor "high-fives." Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How has notability been proven? You just saying it does not make it so. "Minority viewpoint" were tundra's words arguing about "shutting out minority views". Nableezy (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability has been proven. See here for discussion. I agree with the minority VP but I don't endorse your rationale of it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I really dont know if you are being purposefully dense or not, but how has notability been proven? You have said he is a notable academic, fails (not even an academic, and even if he were still fails WP:ACADEMIC), you have said he has been covered in lots of places (fails per WP:BLP1E). But just linking to this entire page to show 'proof' of notability where none exists is kind of meaningless. Nableezy (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, I never said he was a notable academic. I said the idea that him being a notable/non-notable academic isn't pertinent to the AFD, and is a classic Red herring. The BLP1E was discussed thoroughly. You were absent in that discussion, but feel free to add a comment if desired. Your insulting generalizations and dead-end dogmatic approach is extremely frustrating. You ignore valid points, demand more details, ignore those points, then simply turn on recycle mode and start again. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right on one thing, it was tundra who said he was a notable academic. You have not showed coverage of him is of more than one event (and I actually made a comment there as well) so it being thoroughly discussed and you actually proving something are 2 different things. I'm done here though, you want be able to use seeing my username as an excuse to continue your disruption. Nableezy (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing's for sure: He isn't notable according to your objective, neutral standards (I.e, not characterized by thinly-vieled anti-Israeli and propagandic tirades) see Juan Cole for more. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Move/Merge. The guy wrote a report critical of a group, how many people have done that? WP:ONEVENT, anyone? The material may be appropriate for Wiki in an article about the report or about UNRWA if its notability can be separately established.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Copy and Paste Response This point has been stated dozens of times in spite of thorough rationales: Here is one of them from a previous discussion: "I think we've become highly dependent on rules to provide rationale while avoiding actual argument which ironically meet the standards of Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. In response to your point, it is your interpretation that Lindsay's notability solely rest on a "report." This is extremely unfair categorization. Lindsay isn't this person. Lindsay has been covered by BBC, CNN, UN, JP, etc. He has had a long career in the US government and UN programs aside from the UNRWA. Please, my rationale extends for paragraphs while you simply continue with refuted guidelines. Methinks this AFD is ideology driven rather than concern for the article. What's next? Also - Same IPer is involved in disputes at Charity and has taken an opposing stance, as is Rd and Nableezy. Just an update. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

section break

The article James G. Lindsay is proposed for deletion on the grounds that subject fails to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. Arguments for notability have been:
 * He's a notable academic. Rejected as he is merely a visiting fellow at a thinktank, and has no academic publications
 * He's notable for his legal position at UNRWA. Rejected - position is not in itself that notable; it is merely an administrative position.
 * He's notable for a report he did. Rejected on grounds of WP:BLP1E.
 * He's notable for his views; other bios exist on people of similar importance but other views. Rejected - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
 * He's notable for the general coverage he has received independent of the one report: insufficient evidence presented (only one link to a regional weekly paper). Actually that link relates to the report too.
 * OK, so only the last of these seems to have potential. Those who want to keep the article should present evidence of substantial coverage in secondary reliable sources. This coverage will need to be independent of his report. Failing such evidence, the article fails notability and should be deleted. Rd232 talk 15:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment on motivations for deletion The article James G. Lindsay was proposed for deletion as a result of a personal feud between User:Nableezy and I. Yes, we all know this doesn't exclude it from the AFD but user Rd has continually dismissed this happening as irrelevant. It is not. It is in extreme bad-faith to move a clearly unsettling and almost vicious dispute to AFDing an article created by a fueding editor. I know my language may seem hostile but it is nothing short of true. Lengthy arguments can be found, here.. See User:Nableezy participation in talk here. Nableezy has continually initiate edit-warring "to the line" and then reported and/or warned others for responding. I've been blocked 2 or 3 times for confrontations with Nableezy. Disruption. The timing cannot be ignored, almost immediately after our dispute occurred and no resolution was clear (and no user was being punished), Nableezy sent this article for deletion. It is truly disturbing how the admin involved has yet to even recognized this, perhaps because he endorses deletion. That is fine.

Rationale for Keep

Rd's crunched and simplified keypoints resemble that of a strawman. I'll do my best to avoid such fallacy here, but we've been doing this for over 4 pages so bear with me:


 * "*He's a notable academic. Rejected as he is merely a visiting fellow at a thinktank, and has no academic publications."

This was Rd's argument. It was initiated by a lengthy paragraph authored by user tundra. I don't feel like rummaging through the history so I'll paste and copy his exact wording: "Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider.  There is no question regarding notability.  The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion.."

Rd latched on to that single word and based his entire argument off of it. I repeatedly made the claim that it is entirely irrelevant to the AFD and is hardly a valid reason for deletion. His argument meets the profile of a typical red herring. Review full discussion for more info, I prefer not to engage in repetition-for-argument as it is unfair and downright malicious if continued intentionally. I endorse Tundra's rationale.


 * "*He's notable for his legal position at UNRWA. Rejected - position is not in itself that notable; it is merely an administrative position."

Again, extreme generalization. I made the comparison to Peter Hansen (UN), who is only notable for his high position at the UN. You rationalized that because his position was higher, it was superior and qualified as notable. You dismissed Lindsay's employment as "merely legal counsel." Correction: Lindsay was the administrator of all legal affairs within the organization. His duties included negotiating personally with the states of Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. (copy and paste from the article, sorry this is getting boring since I already said). Far from "merely an administrative position." He was formerly "seconded" to the Multinational Force and Observers and was also part of its legal department. And he has a career in the federal government blah blah..who cares.

I know the comparison to Peter Hansen relates to OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but both articles are so closely related I think it was an appropriate comparison. Bolded according to importance.


 * "*He's notable for a report he did. Rejected on grounds of WP:BLP1E. "

again, unsettling generalizations. He's not simply notable for a report he did. He's notable for several reasons, but one includes a sharp critique of the UNRWA dealings with the Palestinians and other countries involved (namely Jordan), as well other stuff that is not more related to the UN (I read the report awhile ago).

Here was Tundra's rationale which I agree with: "Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion."

Your exact response: "He doesn't seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC, not least because he isn't one (the Institute is just a thinktank). And categorisation is irrelevant to notability; what evidence is there that he passes WP:BIO? Rd232 talk 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)"

It seems the discussion has a habit of lengthy, thorough posts responded with short, generalized arguments. I.e, he is notable for x, x, x, and x. Respond: No, he isn't notable for x.

The discussion has bordered wikilawyering which like everything else that has occurred lately, is extremely disturbing in the midst of an administrator.


 * "*He's notable for his views; other bios exist on people of similar importance but other views. Rejected - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. "

Similar rationale provided above.


 * "*He's notable for the general coverage he has received independent of the one report:"

General coverage? Again, suspicious generalization. Coverage generated a response from the United Nations. It was covered by several newspaper, one of which is the Jerusalem Post.

It is in my opinion this discussion has relied too much on guidelines and several users failed to address the article outside of the courtroom. The fact that none of these complaints were forwarded to talk, many of which could have been solved there, is notable. The original rationale was short and sweet, but after continuing responses Rd just listed more and more rules until it would overwhelm users like myself. Something is definitely wrong here, though I'm sure some of you disagree.

I hope I've been specific enough. "You didn't proof notability!" Yeah, I did. Read the discussion. Maybe you disagree because the article is kind of forkish in that it is basically slap to the UNRWA (and by extension the Palestinian "cause" in general.) Dogma and ideology as a motivation for deletion cannot be ignored.

Oh, I almost forgot. Argument for merge has been addressed. Pertinent info is in the Palestinian refugee and UNRWA article.

I would hope sincere, truly concerned editors would rely on talk and dispute resolution before pushing for a delete. Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 *  Merge  to UNRWA. Would those editors who're spamming this AfD until it's hard to find the issues among all the rhetoric please stop?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment As described in my argument for Keep, notable information has been merged already. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good. In that case redirect to UNRWA.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect what? James Lindsay? If so that means you endorse the belief that James Lindsay is 100% synonymous with the UNRWA and an individual article is not justified. His leadership roles, influence in and outside of the UN, etc...all irrelevant. I prefer clarification over 1 sentence rationales (especially when against the pages of arguments, much of which was dedicated to the merge/move argument.) I encourage you to read through that. Not sure if your collapsing edit might prevent editors from reviewing, so I hope it does not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do mean that after considering the arguments, I feel we should redirect James G. Lindsay to UNRWA. I feel this obscure american lawyer does not have sufficient notability to merit his own article on Wikipedia.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh? Obscure lawyer? I rest my case. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is odd how none of the supposedly "concerned" editors who initiated the AFD did not refer to talk. Many of the concerns made here could have been solved there, so the AFD is suspect. Nableezy's behavior cannot be ignored. If this deletion review were to succeed, it would be a grave injustice to the whole process which exists solely to prevent actions like these. Truly tragic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only tragic thing is that you don't seem to understand this process. Demonstrate notability using verifiable reliable sources. It's not always easy, and if it's not possible the article will be deleted; but it's really quite a simple proposition. Rd232 talk 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've demonstrated notability plenty. You've continually cited policy after policy when things didn't go your way. Then you relied on insulting generalizations which lead me to believe you've never read Deletion policy as most administrators involved in AFD should be familiar with. Your use habitual use of fallacies which have consumed the majority of arguments make the likelihood for a clear and thoughtful discussion practically zero. Notability is verified by his leadership role inside and outside the United Nations, specifically the UNRWA, and includes but not limited to addressing the problems within the UNRWA through a widely-covered report that influences opinion to this day. You dismissal of Lindsay as "merely legal counsel" while supporting Peter Hansen (UN) (which is comparable in both notability and sources) is suspect. No, it isn't suspect. It's pretty clear you want this article deleted for ulterior reasons outside protocol. Or else you wouldn't have relied on such out-of-bounds debating tactics, that has gone unabated and responded with indifference aside from myself for whatever reasons. At best, the article should be expanded, improved, and those who hate it should invest time in talk like every other editor who wants to collaborate. You seem dedicated, almost righteous in your quest for deletion, but like Nableezy provided no concerns or suggestions in talk. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A good summary of your position, with an extra helping of breaching WP:AGF. I don't "hate" this article, how ludicrously emotional of you. If his position and media coverage is so significant, then it won't be hard for you to demonstrate enough secondary coverage outside of WP:BLP1E (i.e. not just in relation to the one report). Do that and I'll vote keep. I don't know if you assume I'm not debating in good faith and open to persuasion because you're not, or because you're too emotionally involved with the topic. Either way, take a deep breath and focus on the policies and guidelines which make WP work, and how they apply to this article. Finally, a reminder: if this article is deleted, it has no bearing on the use of the report as a source elsewhere in WP, which I have the impression is your main concern. (Otherwise, I just don't see how a potential delete/merge of this article could angry up the blood so.) Rd232 talk 01:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Long response Right, so now this is an AGF issue. Sorry, but Nableezy's posting of this AFD defiles all that is assuming good faith. He transferred what was basically an irrational and classic I vs Per argument into a personal vendetta, by posting an article I've worked relatively hard on (in collaboration with several editors, with the exception of you and Nab) for deletion. As an admin, that should have been recognized off the bat. But you didn't, no. In fact, you encouraged it. Please, your argument for BLP1e is weak, as is your absurd reliance on fallacies. Between you and Nab, the following rule-spamming has occurred with little rationale for most: WP:Coatrack, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTORIETY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:ONEEVENT, and now WP:AGF. What now? WP:DoAsISayOrIllThreatenYouWithMoreRules1111!! :D I've carefully responded to most of the claims, even ones that without substantial rationale and were eventually supported with fallacies as I've mentioned and proved previously. But, let's go back to your rule BLP1e. This is basically a rehash of Nableezy's original argument for deletion. I'm going to paste and copy the entire section from the rule so there is no confusing:


 * "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

''
 * If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.
 * If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate.'' Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."

I hope I'm representing your POV fairly. You've mentioned that rule several times but mostly end with, "violates x, x, and x...". First off, you continually ignore Lindsay's participation in activities outside of the report. As I said, he was second to UN observational force, played leadership roles in high government positions, and was a chief-legal adviser to the UNRWA, a $100,000,000+ per annum organization, though I think it was more during Lindsay's service. He happened to have written a scathing report on the UNRWA's dealings, which generated a response from the United Nations. His actions have influenced perception of the organization on a global scale, an organization that is crucial in the on-going Palestinian-Israel conflict. You have understated Lindsay's notability outside of the report, with statements like..He was "merely legal counsel" while at the same time having no problems with an equally notable Peter Hansen (UN). This isn't an example of OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but a flaw in your objectivity. Oh, and he is a member of a powerful "thinktank" (which apparently means nothing these days...) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * merge and redirect to UNRWA per one event. he's no hinckley.


 * point #2 above is actually my argument as well: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." untwirl (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you demonstrate his notability, not based on what you think makes him notable unless they meet one of the notability guidelines, but based on reliable 3rd party sources, covering him and not the report? Nableezy (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you read my rationale and ask the question again? I've listed BLPE1 and included explicit and simple examples that relate solely to the subject matter. I spent an unreasonable amount of time writing that and for you to dismiss it as merely opinion/conjecture/rhetoric might be considered a comprehension error on your end. I don't want you to derail the post like you've done in the past so only respond if you have something truly unique to say. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont see a single source in that rationale, much less a single reliable third party source covering him and not the event. That is what proves notability, that is all you need to be able to do. If that is not possible then the article should be deleted. Nableezy (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument between Rd and I in this instance was not about sources, it was regarding BLPEI and notability. Sources can be found in the article. BBC, UN, JP, CNN, and bio site (thinktank) are solid references. Your stonewalling and willful dismissal of pages of extensive, thorough, and detailed arguments is dare I say...insulting. I encourage you to make a new section or something because I do not want you derailing this. Similar, no, exact questions have been asked above and all have been responded to. There is an argument-by-repetition fallacy out there but I'll have to find it lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here we go, enjoy: Ad nauseam. Notice how it fits your approach...almost perfectly! : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources are covering the event, the bio isnt a third party source. I guess you cannot find 3rd party reliable sources covering him and not the event. Nableezy (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So? We have sources that cover the bio, sources that cover the UN report, sources that cover the UN response, and sources that cover the Hansen reference. Many of the BBC, Jpost, CNN, etc... all verify various details of Lindsay's career. Like the Jpost has a piece on his experience with the UNRWA etc... Please Nab, no one can convince you. To be honest I do not care. You'll write everything off no matter what, leave the partisan debates for another time. Feel content you likely not be punished for your unprecedented disrupting and hounding. To continually dismiss notability appears to be a a programmed response rather than an objective, qualified request when compared with the available information and arguments provided. Hopefully a decision is made soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So is simple, to demonstrate notability you need reliable 3rd party sources covering him and not the event. Nableezy (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The 3rd party sources cover him. Again, repetitive fallacy. Tundra wrote a thorough yet simple rationale, but as I said your POV is a sharp and tragic confliction. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you list here all the 3rd party WP:RS sources which cover the life and work of Lindsay - excluding those which relate to the one UNRWA report. A few of those and then BLP1E probably won't apply. That's all. Stop asserting that they exist, and provide them. Thanks. Rd232 talk 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "rationale" you seem to rely on is what Tundra wrote somewhere (far) above: "Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion." I've responded to this before, but (a) categorisation is not proof of notability (b) he's not an academic (I think we agree on this) so it's irrelevant whether he's single-issue (plus red herring anyway); (c) it's irrelevant for notability whether Tundra thinks Lindsay's knowledge and opinions are unique - we rely on WP:RS, not on editors' opinions. Those WP:RS only cover Lindsay in the context of the one report, so per WP:BLP1E we cover the report in its own article if it's important enough, or merge elsewhere if it isn't. Rd232 talk 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Issue is addressed in a lengthy post above (you have yet to respond.) Respond to it, or don't I couldn't care less. This is Nableezy's section. Discussion must involve mutual and fair cooperation. I've been thorough and precise yet you continue with the broken-record. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) You may continue to think that you have addressed the issue, but you have not. Can you provide a reliable third party source covering him and not the event? And its not 'Nableezy's section'. Nableezy (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink... Rd232 talk 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, to make it really easy for you: go as far down this Google search as you like, excluding non-WP:RS and sources relating to that single UNRWA report. If you find any, add them to the article. Rd232 talk 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you are now editing the article. Thank, collaboration is much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)
 * Well you mentioned BBC and CNN sources, so I checked in the article. BBC doesn't mention Lindsay and CNN is about the report (now deleted and replaced with Jerusalem Post, which was the correct attribution for the quote used). I've googled a bit and can't find any WP:RS not relating to the report; perhaps you can do better. Rd232 talk 02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * DeleteSubject is non-notable and the article is mostly a quote dump. An article mostly consisting of carefully selected quotes from a polemic isn't encyclopedic. Therefore, this article won't be a great loss once deleted. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not surprising. You removed a cited quotation claiming it wasn't in the report. It was, and then went off on various accusations in talk. These kinds of disputes can be solved should be avoided. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop with the ad hominem complaints? Nableezy (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, he DID removed cited material and when I caught him (he still denied) he came here. I truly truly truly am tired of this persona Nab. You know as much as I do what's going on here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 0::3:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You did not "catch" him. There was an issue of attribution of a quote, which may or may not now be settled, but in any case does not need hashing out here in addition to on the article talk page. Rd232 talk 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete fails bio.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to reach notability threshhold, academic or otherwise. Being a critc in itself is not a notable or defining characteristic. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Limited notability. Can't find this guy in Google News archives at all.  There's a James Lindsay at the University of Texas at Austin, but that's someone else.  --John Nagle (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

section break
 * Keep. The article is well sourced and establishes notability. Any other problems can be resolved through the normal editing process. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to note which criteria of WP:BIO that this article meets? Tarc (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tark. (I see all the regulars are assembled for this vote.) Its all in the refs. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Malc, still having trouble telling the difference berween a "k" and a "c", eh? No, it isn't in the refs.  What is "in the refs" is trivial, generic biographical entries and brief mentions of involvement in the overall single event/issue that he is connected to, neither of which meets notability requirements. Tarc (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Those refs show notability well above the minimum requirement for for WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Repeating the same thing without actually backing it up is not really a valid position. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What is there to prove? The notability is certainly way above WP's current minimum standard. Take, for example, this impressive article or this  (I admit she looks better than Lindsay). The fact is that WP has standards of notability that allows in stuff of much lower notability than James G. Lindsay. The real problem in the case may be that a group of editors just don't like what he has to say, ie WP:JDLI. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Invoking WP:WAX is hardly a good answer to a request for specific sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is bullshit. The article meets every point in WP's General notability guideline, as can be seen. The sources themselves are in the article, and I do not need to duplicate them here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Two paragraph-sized bio blurbs and a few name-drops in articles about UNRWA itself do not satisfy notability guidelines, which is all that is in the article currently. That is why I asked you what else is there to establish notability.  It really wasn't all that difficult of a question.  And for the record, porn actors have a different set of criteria. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Special notability guidelines supersede the general ones - in this case, WP:BIO, most relevantly WP:BLP1E. However even under the general guidelines, the secondary sources are covering the report, not the subject of this article (Lindsay). Rd232 talk 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not the way it actually works. The notability guidelines are just guidelines. In practice, which any editor knows who has watched AfDs, the standard applied for notability is far more flexible than some here claim. You are pretending that there are stringently applied guidelines when that is not the case. I know for certain that if I wanted to waste time gong through edit histories, I could find cases of editors who object to this article, supporting articles far more problematic. This article should make the cut, and any remaining problems should be resolved through the normal editing process. Anyone who knows the cast of editors participating in this AfD knows the voting brakes down along the usual Israel/Palestine dispute faultline. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the guidelines were stringently applied, and indeed guidelines aren't supposed to be. Policy, on the other hand, is, and WP:BLP1E is policy. Of course this being Wikipedia consistency is not something you'll find for the application of either policy or guidelines - but that is not an argument for keeping an article, any more than WP:ILIKEIT, which is what the keep arguments seem to boil down to. Faultline is irrelevant, as is personal history - the weight of argument is clearly on one side of the issue, and you're on the wrong side, judging by !votes from non I/P editors. Rd232 talk 23:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:BIO/WP:N. No evidence of his notability has been presented and there seems to be none to found.  T i a m u t talk 17:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Dlabtot (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or redirect to UNRWA per WP:BIO1E. There's a small sourced factual core of the article (that he was general counsel for UNRWA) but this part does not support notability; the bulk of the article is a coatrack for his criticism of UNRWA rather than being about him. I'm seeing this because of its listing on the deletion sorting list for academics, but I don't think he passes any criterion of WP:PROF: not #1 because his criticism of UNRWA is not an academic work and its impact is not academic, and not #5 because a think tank is not a research university. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to the alphabetical organization that this obvious coatrack article is actually about. P.S. I am neither an 'I' nor a 'P'. I'm a 'WB'. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure how important this is but I would like to point it out: It seems the keep/delete "votes" are split between the obvious P's and I's (with the exception of R2). Epstein was involved in a prior dispute with me over a Noam Elkies and accused me of promoting "blood purity." I remember that one lol. Just making sure everyone understands the background. The listing of academic was in the category. No where in the article is it said or proved that he is an academic. I think a user asked it to be sorted because it was a possibility, perhaps they confused him with another James Lindsay who is a professor. Epstein, all your valid points have been addressed to death in the crowded responses above. I know it's hard to navigate, but all rules...BLP1E, ACADEMIC, COATTRACK, OTHERCRAPEXISTS....have experienced intense debates. The policy shopping was at times became unbearable, but reasonable arguments were provided from both sides and cans till be found. Someone could paste and copy previous posts to make it easier. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What does your past history have to do with this AfD? Regardless, I consider your assumption of partisanship among the participants here to be a personal attack and a I request that you refrain from making or expressing such bad-faith assumptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * R2 mentioned something about P vs I vote count and he woefully overstated it. From my count, we have maybe 1 or 2 who are sufficiently outside hostile territory. Then again, voting isn't part of the process. Disputes aren't particularly unique aside from affirming points and arguments made above. Not trying to o distract from the actual argument (regardless of POV), but I just wanted to make that correction for R2 and anyone else who is curious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You have way too much time on your hands. It was a passing comment that those uninvolved were falling clearly on once side of the debate. Rd232 talk 04:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I've just edited with almost all of these users before. By "uninvolved" do you mean uninvolved in the article or uninvolved in terms of Pal/Is? If it's the latter, than not really. Of all the people "voting", I see 3 that I've never collaborated with and don't know their editing style/POV. You're one of them. ;D As I said, not particularly relevant to actual arguments but it was an inaccuracy I had to correct, if only in a passing comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen to what i say please. I wasn't commenting on the number of people uninvolved, I was commenting on the views of those uninvolved. Obviously who is uninvolved is debatable, but it makes no difference whether you construe the group widely or narrowly, a matter I obviously have no interest in debating, thank you very much, not least because it's irrelevant. (Hence my comment about you having too much time.) Rd232 talk 12:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep—subject appears somewhat notable outside the UNRWA controversy, even if it is difficult to establish notability. Of course, he gained much notoriety following the UNRWA incident, which is in itself a notable incident, covered by numerous news sources, political blogs, etc. etc. Since the incident does not have an article, there is no reason to delete this one. A move like Ceedjee suggested would be an acceptable solution for the time being, as I concede that Lindsay's individual notability is borderline and by now too tied to the UNRWA indicent. —Ynhockey (Talk) 05:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be a POV fork? If it is just about the report then the information should be, and is in the UNRWA article. Nableezy (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * POV fork of what? It has to fork from another article or published POV. Does the article suffer from a lack of neutrality? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A POV fork is an article that is inherently POV/biased because of the subject matter it covers (e.g. List of killings done by Jews in 1955, or something), especially if it's part of a larger neutral topic. An article about an event is not a POV fork. The UNRWA letter should be described in context, and due weight should be given to all notable opinions on the matter. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was thinking the article would be dedicated to the report itself, which I think would be a fork from the UNRWA article where the material is covered in its proper context. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per David Eppstein -- not notable outside UNRWA issue, this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per ynhockey.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * delete Seems like a coatrack to talk about UNRWA. If someone can point to more sourcing about Lindsay it might make sense. I have no objection to merging relevant content into the UNRWA article but most of that seems to already be there. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to the managing administrator: Apparently by mistake, my vote was collapsed onto the last collapsed section above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I collapsed the discussion because it paired well with the "does not comply." I'd imagine it would be easier for an admin to sift through the collapses instead of trying to pick out scattered and repetitive arguments. You could write "Keep, commentary in x collapse" so there is no confusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The article is a coatrack, and Lindsay does seem to derive his notability from one event, and there's no way he meets WP:PROF. That said, ynhockey makes a very fair point that this is precisely the sort of person with sufficient credentials, whose entry into a charged political debate makes it likely that people will be interested in him, and coverage clearly sufficient for WP:BIO will emerge (it's currently borderline, IMO). We've clearly not heard the last of him, and enough material for a stubby bio exists. That said, the current article clearly needs to be pared down, and I think the suggestion of forking the content about the letter is a good one. Ray  Talk 06:37, 26 April 2009 (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.