Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Klonsky


 * 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Klonsky

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

This article was reduced to a stub in April, apparently due to an OTRS complaint (see the article talk page). Nobody seems to have been interested in rewriting the article since then. In the state it is currently in, it does not assert or establish notability, and also lacks reliable sources.  Sandstein  15:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, since the article has now been sourced to the point where notability is clearly established. Thanks, David!  Sandstein  22:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I expect the claims amount to notability. I'm not sure what you mean about "lacks reliable sources" two New York Times articles seem obviously over the WP:RS bar.  As for the stubbiness, that doesn't seem to me to be grounds for deletion, an article could be written, and conceivably  even brought up to FA status.  The concerns the subject raised on the ORTS seem well founded, but I gather from Guy's response that he requested the falsities be deleted, rather than requesting complete deletion of the article.  I'm strongly inclined towards keep on the basis of what I've seen so far. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The NYT and LAT sources weren't in the article when it was nominated for deletion — at that time, it really did look like a speedy A7 candidate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * response Thanks, I should have checked to compare the article version at nom... Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Always check the article history before A7 speedy nominations. Edison (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I object to the invalid basis for the deletion nomination. Perceived "lack of interest in rewriting" a stubbed article is in no way a valid basis for proposing deletion. Klonsky objected to what he said were inaccuracies and slander in the article, so it was stubbed. But stubbing an article does not remove the notability of the subject, who was national secretary of the Students for a Democratic Society and thus a very important figure in the movement against the Vietnam War in the late 1960's. He appeared on CBS "Face the Nation" in 1972 as a spokesman for the New Left. Google News archive has 137 items about Michael Klonsky, many with substantial coverage. Google Book Search has 196 references, many with substantial coverage. . His more recent academic work in education  also has multiple citations in reliable sources with substantial coverage. The article must certainly comply with the policies for biographies of living persons and be carefully referenced. He clearly satisfies WP:BIO and WP:N. He also satisfies WP:PROF. Edison (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly is a valid reason for AfD if the stub is so minimal as to qualify for WP:CSD. I could just as well have deleted it wholesale.  Sandstein   22:06, 19 August 2008 (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.