Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menachem Z. Rosensaft


 * 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.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Menachem Z. Rosensaft

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is advertising, and the subject does not meet the notability standard. Delete This article comes off as blatant advertising for the subject. Further, the subject does not appear to meet WP:NOT, as despite many citations in the article, none seem to point to stories about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumanji123 (talk • contribs) 2007/03/23 13:40:37 — Jumanji123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy keep. This is clearly a bad-faith nomination by a supposedly new User whose only other edit is to place a "speedy delete" template on the same article. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 14:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Justification? Mel - Did you read the article? It's obvious advertising, and despite citation of numerous Op-Eds by the subject, there doesn't seem to be a single news article cited about the subject, as per WP:NOT. Jumanji123 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — Jumanji123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There's no need to make this about the nominator when making it about the article will result in a sure keep. Milto LOL pia 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't made it about the nominator, but the nominator is relevant (he's not even entitled to have his voice counted in the AfD, as he has too few edits and has been here for too short a time. It's a single-use account, and it's pretty clear what that use is.  It's also clear that it disguises some other, more regular editor; it's probable that he's also first-time editor Scooterm, below. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. Agree with Jumanji123- we should not allow Wiki to be used for self promotion. There is no objective reason why this is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooterm  (talk • contribs)  — Scooterm (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - wow, lots of sources. Very verifiable by all this independent third-party coverage, and it certainly didn't come off as advertising in the least when I skimmed it.  Milto LOL pia 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But What Sources? Miltopia - Anyone can write or get quoted in a lot of articles, but the notability standard, WP:NOT, is entirely clear that the subject of a WikiPedia article must be the subject, not simply a person quoted, of articles in multiple, independent sources. There are tons of people who don't meet the standard who would be notable if being quoted in multiple articles, or being the author of them, became the source of notability. Jumanji123 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — Jumanji123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Several of the sources appear to be about him, and being quoted that many times in higher publications certainly makes you notable, even if it doesn't say so in the policy. Milto LOL pia 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which sources "appear to be about him," and how do you know? If being quoted that many times makes you notable, how many stock analysts, school board members, PR people, etc., who'd never get an article written about them would count? Jumanji123 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Rosensaft is a notable individual (I had heard of him before this AFd) and the article is well sourced. I do agree with the tag on the article, though, which says it needs to be wikified. I would go further and say it reads like a press release right now. But that is not a reason to delete it. Jeffpw 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How many other people you've heard of should be included? That doesn't speak at all to notability, per WP:NOT.
 * Keep I think 33 reliable and verifiable sources goes a long way to demonstrating notability. Alansohn 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleanup. Certainly Keep but is way too long. SYSS Mouse 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are tons of people in this world who have that many quotations, but who've never been the subject of an article. There's a reason why that's the WP:NOT standard. Quote machines are a much more common appearance in the media than subjects of stories, and that's why it's a reasonable notability standard. Jumanji123 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep lots of references in reliable sources, and a quick Google Books search comes up with plenty of citations (55 book mentions total). Seems notable enough. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but citations of what? He's never actually been the subject of any of these citations. Jumanji123 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Wikify Per all the above, the subject of the article seems notable - the article is just a bit unreadable. Keep the notable subject, clean up the dense article - and thank the person who brought it to everyone's attention.  (Although it probably shouldn't have been nominated for deletion in this case - just cleanup - it's always good to try to improve the encyclopedia.) --TheOtherBob 18:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing anyone claim that he's the subject of multiple, verifiable stories. Jumanji123 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are a single-purpose account created solely to nominate this article for deletion. I suppose you have the right to do that, but your obsession with the subject is becoming concerning. Newyorkbrad 19:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because this is the first thing that caught my eye. You can't dispute the argument I'm putting forth here. Either the WP:NOT standard means something or it doesn't. I happen to be expert in this area, and if Rosensaft is notable, so are hundreds of others of similar credentials who don't have people writing really long articles that by virtue of their comprehensiveness seem to reach notability, when they don't. Jumanji123 19:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're an expert, as you claim to be, perhaps you might like to tell us who you are and what your credentials are. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, you'd like to make this about me, instead of the objective fact that this article doesn't meet the standard of WP:NOT. I'm not going to relinquish my anonymity here, and it shouldn't be compulsory on me to do so in order to note this simple fact, which no one has disputed. Jumanji123 20:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I dispute it, and adhere to my earlier comments. Newyorkbrad 20:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How and where do you dispute it? What are the mutiple, reliable sources about him, as per WP:NOT? Jumanji123 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has multiple references cited, perhaps an excessive number of references, and I am now seriously concerned regarding the nature of your seeming obsession with having it deleted. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you choose to remain anonymous then you can't also choose to lean on supposed "expert" status in votes or debates. It doesn't work that way. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not leaning on it. I continue to maintain that this article should be deleted for failure to cohere with WP:NOT, and that alone. The plain fact is that the subject of this article is indistinguishable from numerous other quote machines who don't merit an entry because of WP:NOT, with the sole redeeming fact (in the eyes of some) being that someone very concerned with promoting the subject created a lengthy article citing his many quotations. Jumanji123 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per all the above, should never have been nominated. -  Irides centi  19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, cites tons of reliable independent sources, clearly passes WP:ATT and WP:BIO. — Krimpet (talk/review) 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article is well-sourced, clearly meets WP:BIO and WP:ATT. What part of WP:NOT does this violate? Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Cites lots of references to reliable sources Garcia-Fons 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 23:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly meet WP:BIO and WP:ATT. Silly nomination.  --Haemo 00:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously meets the N and VS requirements. I do not think the nomination (or its support) was in bad faith--I think that the excessive length of the article, and the exceptional detail and long quotations made it appear like a number of real autobio spam, and possibly the actual content wasn't really perceived. I am being a charitable as possible about this.  DGG 08:28, 24 March 2007 (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.