Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Tarlow


 * 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. Merging can be discussed on the talk page. Core desat 07:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Tarlow

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Claim to be an "important figure" in security and tourism is not supported by the sources listed and is pure NPOV. The few outside sources listed only confirm his position and that he wrote a single book. Collectonian (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Individual is quite notable, after a quick look at Google Books. See http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22Peter+Tarlow%22&sa=N&tab=np (Mind meal (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
 * delete - seems short on notability. is the book important?  there are no reviews listed in the article.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep notable in field of tourism security and as as leader of the nation's oldest Hillel at Texas A&M where individual is a profesor. Bhaktivinode (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't demonstrate notability as an academic. The biggest barrier right now for the article is that it does not cite any reliable, third-party sources (The Batt is a newspaper, but since it is a school paper for the school where he is a professor, it can't stand alone in establishing notability, and the other "sources" are websites of places he is affiliated with.).  Can you find reliable sources-quickly-that discuss him in detail? Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - should be more explained why he is so important--YY (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A simple Google search shows numerous sources supporting the article's claims. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   IZAK (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, he is notable, as a professor, rabbi and head of Hillel. If he were only a "Hillel rabbi" he would lack notability. But searching the web proves that he is a noted sociologist and expert in a number of significant areas. See this: Peter E. Tarlow is a sociologist specializing in the impact of crime and terrorism on the tourism industry and also in tourism and economic development. This: The Crytpto-Jews and the Inquisition in New Spain: A Symposium at Texas A&M University...Committee Members:...Rabbi Peter Tarlow, Hillel Foundation;... and this: Listed in Texas A&M University Department of Philosophy and many more like this that proves his notability in a number of fields: academic, Jewish and communal. IZAK (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, no one is adding any of this information to the article? Wouldn't that address the issue far better than just saying "here's stuff"? Collectonian (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then WHY did you nominate the article without even checking if there were other sources, if the article did not meet "your" standards? This nomination is rather BOGUS and far from constructive! Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You were the one who created the article as a two sentence stub, and despite having its notability questioned previously, did nothing to address the issue. It is not the job of other editors to fix your articles when you make them like this then abandon them. The article makes none of the assertions of notability given here and is entirely sourced by primary and local sources. My quick search only show that he writes a few niche books and is a professor. As I didn't feel any of that meet WP:BIO or Notability (academics), I sent it for AfD.


 * Only now is more information being given, and even then it is all of the stuff IZAK lists comes from TAMU, his unversity, so it is not an independant, secondary source. Where are outside sources showing that he is "regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field," "has published a significant and well-known academic work,", "has received a notable award or honor", or that he is "the subject of published[2] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject?" It was not a first resort, the article was previously CSDed. Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet you used Afd as a first resort? Far from civil! Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Try again. It was questioned for notability over a month ago when it was sent for CSD, so you and anyone else interested has had a month since then to address the issues. You did nothing and still have not shown any actual notability outside of TAMU. Collectonian (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what your motives are but you seem to consistantly delete artiticles related to Jews in Texas. This article is notable, I feel other editors will agree. I am sure we will be discussing other deletions in the future. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You make the same accusations anytime anyone nominates your articles for deletion, subtly questioning if they have something against Jewish people instead of acknowledging that you frequently make articles that do not properly assert notability. Four articles of yours have already been AfDed, while another resulted in a redirect because it couldn't establish independant notability. I'm not the only editor to notice this or to regularly go behind and play clean up when you do this. Why not actually weigh an article against the notability guidelines before creating them so we wouldn't keep meeting here? Collectonian (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not be constructive instead of attacking articles as you began with Temple Freda, disscussion noted here, please review . Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've repeatedly pointed you, Bhaktivinode, towards the wiki policies on reliable sources, notability, and verification[, yet the new articles you create tend to all have the same problems (lack of reliable, independent sources and/or no claim to notability within WP's guidelines), which is why so many of your articles are AfD'd. Find reliable, independent sources that support the claims you make and the articles won't be brought here.  When an article does get brought to AfD, that is your cue that it needs to be fixed pronto. Karanacs (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Karanacs/Collectonian, figuratively speaking, there is no need to stick your head in the sand, look around, this is a notable person with sources to support it. Bhaktivinode (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you provide those sources when you create the article?  If you are having trouble understanding why the sources you do provide do not qualify to establish notability, please ask.  There is a reliable sources noticeboard that can provide advice.  Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is kind of you, and will be helpful for new articles. Bhaktivinode (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (edit conflict) I found two articles on Google News that appear to provide sufficient coverage of this person.  The sites require subscription, so I haven't incorporated the info into the article, but the urls are now on the Talk Page of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per IZAK. On a side note, I have observed over the past few months a significant number of Jewish-related Texas articles nominated for deletion almost as soon as they're created. While I'm not raising the question of if all of them belong on Wikipedia, I do know that the appearance created may discourage potential editors from creating worthwhile topics. Some of this may be simply the result of the nature of the topic. Perhaps articles concerning Judaism & Texas are more easily noticed and therefore picked out more often than, for example, articles concerning Judaism & New York, simply because Judaism is generally recognized as more synonymous with NY than Texas. Instead of tagging them immediately for deletion, maybe they should be tagged as needing to be improved, at least allowing the article's creator ample time to develop the article. I doubt most articles are written to Wikipedia standards at the moment they are created.  A child is not born fully developed and able to stand on his/her own, neither is an article. Nsaum75 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your evaluation of the situation; I have used Wikipedia for some time but never registered until I came across some Jewish Texan articles whose merit were being debated. My time is limited outide of school and work, but the main reason I have not contributed much to Wikipedia is because I feel some editors have created a environment that is not supportive of the creation and enrichment of articles related to Jewish Texas.Lchaimgirl (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree, there appears to be a consistancy to these nominations, from the same two editors. The article at hand is clearly notable, a simply google search confirms this. I hope this trend does not continue, or that there is some solution to counter it in the future. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The best way to ensure that an article is not brought to AfD is to cite reliable independent sources when you create the article. Unfortunately, many of the Jewish Texas articles do not cite reliable independent sources and have weak claims to notability. I found them because I frequently clean up Texas-related categories, not because I have a vendetta against Jewish articles or Texas articles.  Karanacs (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Examples in your edit history show that you tried to delete Congregation Shearith Israel (Texas), Simon Theatre, Leon Toubin, Jimmy Kessler to name a few. Culturalrevival (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion is on Peter Tarlow, we should all focus on this topic for now. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Texas A&M Hillel.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK. Lchaimgirl (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK and Culturalrevival. Religion is a sensitive subject. I edit Hinduism articles, and I have seen descrimination and bigotry present in almost all religious discussions and debates. The person being discussed, here, is a notable scholar, and as for the nominator, I believe the assumption of good faith until proven otherwise is the proper attitude to take. To echo Culturalrevival, I hope this is not a trend. Ism schism (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per IZAK. -- M P er el 07:48, 8 February 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.