Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Katz (2nd 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. The only "delete" !vote here cites as a reason a point that has been addressed at the previous AfD and was overruled at the time. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jerome Katz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, deleted a tonne of WP:OR -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 03:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  03:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for the same reasons as the first AfD: clear and obvious passes of WP:PROF and WP:PROF. This WP:NOTNOTABLE nomination which does not even explain why the outcome should be different this time deserves a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It does explain why it should be different. I deleted a tonne of original research from the article. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 03:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which has nothing to do with the reasons for his notability. "I deleted stuff" is not a deletion rationale. (I do think your trimming was on the whole an improvement, though.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Checking for previous interactions between CFCF, the first person to RfD this article and the banned editor may reveal the real reason for this recommendation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.217 (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean that this article was created as a result of paid promotional editing, that the people who did the paid editing still seem to be active, and that CFCF dislikes edits-for-pay (as do I)? Yes, but the paid editing was discussed last time around and deemed not a significant enough factor to delete. This post-AfD edit is suspicious, possibly grounds for believing that paid editing is continuing, but it's not a big edit, and watchlisting the article should be enough to keep the problem in check. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The only way the above IP could know that is if he in fact were that editor. Referring to Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 06:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So it was just coincidence that bought you to an article whose COI issues were dealt with 8 months Go? Sure, that sounds plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.217 (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there is a clear chain of events that brought me here, but I don't find that especially noteworthy. After further looking into the sourcing of the article I found very little actually came from the sources and most of it was WP:OR. That plus the fact that this was a known paid write-up makes me curious as to why it wasn't deleted last time. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 14:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity what was that chain of events? As it's clear I'm sure you won't have any trouble explaining it. As for why it wasn't deleted last time that's because it easily passes WP:N. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that two WP:MED stalwarts who had run-ins with its creator are both unable to comprehend that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.135.198 (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear about the "clear chain of events" that motivates a member of the WP:MED cabal to revisit a closed RfD on a non-MED article after 8 months. It's nothing to do with the creator of the article writing an unflattering blog post about Doc James last week, I suppose? Or is that another coincidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.139.241 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop your off-topic insinuations. The chain of events seems clear enough to me: as a side-effect of the long-ongoing e-cigarette disputes (for which see e.g. WP:ANI or Arbitration/Requests/Case), CFCF happened to notice a pattern of paid editing by other editors involved in those articles, and also noticed that those same paid editors had worked on this otherwise-unrelated article. Regardless, the discussion here should be focused on the notability of this article, not on off-wiki blog posts on unrelated topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * delete despite the unquestionable notability, as being undoubtedly paid editing in violation of the terms of use. (the current tou requiring identification went into effect June 16, 2014. This article was started by the now-banned editor/sockmaster on Dec 15, 2014. He was banned a few days later. (it doesnt qualify for speedy deletion as G5 because there were substantial good faith edits by others. But that just means it requires discussion, not that it should be kept.    We are benefitted when such articles are deleted, because it removes the work from Wikipedia, where the continued presence of such articles is a disgrace. Deleting it further helps to explain to naive outsiders why they should not unethical paid editors. It will be easy enough to start again from scratch by someone responsible.   DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh look, yet another WP:MED hanger-on who doesn't understand what a valid delete reason is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.135.108 (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as per David Eppstein.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

KEEP under Notability_(academics) as he holds a named chair appointment --Acurry4 (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  13:22, 15 August 2015 (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.