Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justus Weiner (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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Justus Weiner
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This person seems to be only notable for one event, being involved in a controversy about what he wrote about another person. The introduction gives some general facts about his life and career without making any real claim to notability, then the article gets into the controversy and spends most of its time there. Jaque Hammer (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Much of the information on the dispute is included in a lengthy footnote in the Edward Said article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I wrote already on the article discussion, the article reflects the image cultivation of Weiner and his camp and is based on highly biased "sources" (JCPA, frontpagemag,...) which are to be attributed to this camp. revision, taking into account more objective views, is one possibility. But it could well be that this person for itself isn't notable enough and that the essence of the article can be moved to the Edward Said article.--Severino (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Weiner is the author of multiple published and widely reviewed books and is thus notable per Notability (academics) and WP:AUTHOR. This article can be expanded and improved, I see no policy based justification for deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The claim that the person is notable for one event is incorrect. He is a scholar, has published articles in academic journals as well as major peridocals of high standing.  The entry should not be deleted. --ResidentRevenant (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Whole his main notoriety in the news was with regard to Said (even making multiple mentions in the NYT), his other works are widely cited (huge number, in fact, per Google Scholar - not "google"). shows that Weiner is not a "one trick pony." Collect (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a very well sourced article about a notable person. He has lots of published works, and there are lots of articles about himself.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Marokwitz, ResidentRevenant, Collect. Not an earth-shaking figure, but not unworthy of a short article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as an individual worthy of encyclopedic biography. FIX this article, which is terrible. Carrite (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up Person appears to pass notability requirements; article needs to be improved. -- Avi (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete -- definitely a one trick pony; if it weren't for his misguided academic stalking and character assassination of Said, nobody would know a thing about this guy. All his notability comes from the Said incident (just look through and actually read the google scholar links mentioned above); and it is more than well covered in the Said article itself.  If we keep the article, it might be better reframed as "Justus Weiner Edward Said controversy" or something rather than as a bio. csloat (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Collect. Inspecting the Google scholar links as recommended above I find that years before the Said controversy he was described as a domain expert, and was publishing articles in well known journals of international law that were subsequently cited extensively by other scholars. Easily meets the notability standards. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ? Cited extensively by other scholars?  This should be interesting. csloat (talk) 21:18, 23 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.