Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner


 * 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   no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Justus Weiner

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

Delete There is nothing notable about this public official other than he once wrote a critical article about Edward Said a decade ago. A number of people considered his article to be unfair, including Christopher Hitchens, who said so publically. A brief exchanged followed. Then nothing for ten years. Simply not enough to warrant his having an entry in Wikipedia. Dynablaster (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just don't see the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only notability is as someone who once tried to discredit a well-known scholar and failed. csloat (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with the Edward Said article . Looking over his bio he has enough material to justify an article. Mashkin (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

a non-frivolous controversy, without regard to being right or wrong, would be a good start on notable and may even be part of a bigger discussion. For example, many people reasonably came out against relativity or in support of cold fusion. Understanding the people and reasoning may be interesting and instructive. Not sure about BLP issues with "came out against relativity" or some other thing that would seem stupid today but that is what science is all about, as with many things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 12:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Discuss or Merge. I'm only reacting to comments here but generating
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Palestine in addition to the hatchet job on Said
 * Delete per BLP1E ukexpat (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I would agree if his article alleging that Said was a liar were his only claim to fame, it might not be enough, but he's done other things, if the article we have right now is correct. I think he's easily within WP parameters of notability. IronDuke  05:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Check the references for false and misleading statements e.g. he has written for "law journals" (He hasn't and the citations do NOT say he has.) The lede claims he is international human rights lawyer. He is not and the citations do not say he is. As Israeli official for 12 years, he fought Amnesty International on human rights issues. That he was an Israeli official has been deleted from this article in the last week. This article should be deleted because it is a prop to attack Edward Said and contains a string of false statements about the subject, Weiner. His "accomplishments" have been puffed up by his fans. He does not meet WP parameters for notability. This article is an ideological hatchet job.Skywriter (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Delete altogether . Whatever happens please don't merge this propagandist's fringe claims with the Said article which does not need to give space to claims in an article turned down by The New Republic because the author refused to look at the galley proofs of Said's forthcoming autobiography to see how the article's subject actually described his childhood . Treating this material as legitimate for inclusion in the Said article would violate WP:Undue weight and WP:Coatrack. --Peter cohen (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Google news shows over 50 articles which mention Weiner spread over a decade. Although some material is bloggish, a lot is mainstream out--Peter cohen (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)lets. There's coverage of his writings on Christians in


 * Comment the only outside commentary I see on his one writing about Christians is an article in Frontpage Magazine, a magazine devoted to right-wing smear campaigns that also praised his anti-Said obsession. I'm not sure that's enough to merit a separate article on this guy; it would be really nice to have third party commentary that suggests this work is important. csloat (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He has a number of monographs published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs including this .Mashkin (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes he has that self-published work, it is true, but the question is whether his published work has received any significant attention from third parties. Other than the scurrilous attacks against Said, it appears that it has not. csloat (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Obviously, our own personal opinions on him and Said are completely irrelevant. To the main topic, Weiner had no real notability in and of himself; he only received attention for his attacks on Said. While the attacks were notable, he as a person is not necessarily notable because of that. As per the question of how much weight to give his statements on the Said page (a sentence, a paragraph, whatever), that is a separate issue that does not need to be resolved here. The Squicks (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The article called Justus Weiner embarrasses Wikipedia in numerous ways because it is both false and misleading. Here's one example among several. The biggest section is taken up not with a discussion of Weiner's life and contributions but with the title of an article in which Weiner accuses Edward Said of dishonesty. When the reader follows the link (at the top of the page), he is led to this: 'Scholar' Deliberately Falsified Record in Attack on Said." ( http://www.counterpunch.org/said1.html ) That's right. An analysis of Weiner's work holds that it was Weiner who lied about Said yet the thrust of Wikipedia's biographical article about Weiner claims exactly the opposite. I corrected this in previous iterations but have been reverted twice. I do not wish to engage in edit war and by pointing this out here, have done my best to make known how this article embarrasses Wikipedia. Skywriter (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Based on what I read, I agree with IronDuke; he appears to satisfy WP:BIO guidelines.  PK  T (alk)  19:50, 13 June 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.