Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Feierstein


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 11:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mitch Feierstein

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. The only possible reason for any encyclopedic notability is his one book, but. a/c WorldCat is in fewer than 100 libraries. Accepted at AfC regardless,  DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  04:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  04:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient in-depth  coverage in  sources and sources that  are not  admissible. Fails WP:Bio. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 08:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews. I know DGG prefers WorldCat in determining notability but it's a bad way to go about it for a number of reasons, and not codified in the rules (previous debates never had consensus). WorldCat is a decent rule of thumb heuristic for a quick check but not as a final rationale for deletion. Does the author have multiple book reviews per NBOOK? Check. Let's use the rules as written (I can see why it passed AfC) - notability can be determined by critical attention not just librarian budgetary choices. --  Green  C  16:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Got a couple decent sources showing in the footnotes and the book itself probably has some review juice. This is a GNG pass, not necessarily a SNG-AUTHOR or SNG-BOOK pass. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2014 (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.