Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Lazarus (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 delete. There is consensus that there are valid grounds to delete (criteria 4 under deletion policy, per the promotional content. No consensus on notability should the article be rewritten and recreated. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Neil Lazarus
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Extensive conflict of interest in the creation of the page; notability seems low Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * keep the article needs to be completely re-written WP:TNT but there seems to be enough coverage in RS to meet WP:GNG. --hroest 00:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. I'm concerned that I was unable to verify any of the sources in the article, which otherwise look like they ought to be verifiable.  I'll point out that there's another Neil Lazarus (b. 1953) in post-colonial studies who shows some signs of notability.  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lazarus does appear to have clips of relevant sources on his website FYI. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am concerned that it seems like the article has included promotional language since its creation (possibly self-promotional), and by the great amount of promotional content one has to sift through in order to find relevant sources. It makes it harder to assess the sources that do exist. My hunch is that there's a marginal case for notability here, but I'm not sure where I land yet... &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. So heavily promotional that it could be a case for WP:CSD, it is not obvious that any of the sources present in the article are in-depth, neutral, reliable, and independent, and good sources were also not obvious in searching. I'm not convinced that he doesn't pass WP:GNG, but I'm also not convinced that he does, and in any case WP:TNT applies to the current text. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2021 (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.