Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Eisenberg


 * 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Eisenberg

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

This article should be deleted since it fails WP:BIO and is a poorly formatted, shoddily written, unreferenced article regarding an individual that fails WP:N, this article has serious WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR issues. Essentially this is a promotional article about this person's superfluous small time company. The article has generated no substantive edits aside from the creator, regardless of notability and wikify tags that have led to no where. Delete this mess already.NewAtThis (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being quoted in newspaper articles, which is what all the sources in the article amount to, along with all that I can find in searching, doesn't cut the mustard if there are no sources about her. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Deor (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some coverage as an activist, significance primarily WP:LOCAL. The abuse in the nomination is well over the top and unnecessary; please try to find more civil ways to say things next time, NewAtThis. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  abuse!!?? NewAtThis (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "poorly formatted", "shoddily written", "superfluous small time company", "delete this mess". All unnecessary to make your point. The first two are irrelevant to deletion as we have cleanup tags and hundreds of thousands of articles needing it. The second is a personal judgement of the value of someone's contribution to the world, which is not what we are doing when we look objectively for notability. The last is just commanding people to follow your lead, which is inconsistent with developing WP:CONSENSUS, a core policy.--Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree the article is indeed poor and shoddy..i don't think wikipedia should have poor and shoddy articles about people without any references. Someone who owns a superfluous company is not of note because their company is not notable. If her company was not superfluous then she would deserve inclusion. The article is a mess by anyone's measure. That's why you suggested cleanup tags, thanks for proving my point. Crappy articles should be deleted, end of story. I suggest you learn to spell judg e ment the next time you accuse someone of judging others. As for her contributions, they are valueless here, if they were not people would vote keep. Why list something for deletion with a deletion rational if i don't want them to develop consensus for delete. Perhaps we should list articles for consensus. But we don't do we. It's called articles for deletion so i'm gonna promote deletion thank you.NewAtThis (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, not enough sources about this person to establish their notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete - fails WP:BIO - the subject of the article is not the focus of significant coverage. BWH76 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Subject has received significant coverage in the New York Daily News, The Brooklyn Paper , and The New York Times . Yes, the last is behind a pay-wall on the web but keep FUTON bias in mind. The key is that reliable secondary sources exist to verify and expand this article. - Dravecky (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lot's of people are verifiable, that doesn't make them notable. This woman certainly isn't.68.27.12.1 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note There is convincing evidence that 68.27.12.1 and NewAtThis are the same person. - Dravecky (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as disruptive nomination by banned sockpuppeteer, with evidence of sock commenting. No prejudice against good-faith renomination. Jfire (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, whom exactly did you have in mind with regard to that "sock commenting" remark? Deor (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Dravecky's comment above about IP 68.27.12.1. Jfire (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, it was obvious that the IP was NewAtThis, and that was pointed out by Dravecky. I've been accused of wikilawyering on occasion myself, but I think that it's probably a bit much to say "start over" when there are four "delete" opinions (other than the nominator's) and only one "keep" opinion (other than your procedural one). I don't appreciate having to comment several times on the same article merely because a nomination has been deemed to be somehow invalid. I've chastised NewAtThis for ridiculous nominations, commented at AN/I with regard to such nominations, and !voted "keep" for several articles he's nominated, but I don't think that making everyone repeat their opinions regarding this article is a good idea. Deor (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to direct your attention to two statements (with emphasis added by me) in WP:SK: An article may be speedy kept if "the nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it (since calling a nomination vandalism does not make it so, and vandals can be correct)," and "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." I think it's clear that this doesn't qualify for a speedy keep. Deor (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep due to problematic nomination as indicated above and also because it is a coherent and referenced article. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - the sources confirm at least part of her biography. PhilKnight (talk) 13:41, 7 April 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.