Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrence Oved


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Terrence Oved

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A New York City real estate attorney who gets his name in the newspaper as a quote source for various high-profile real estate cases, but no significant coverage of Oved himself can be found. This history of publications does not appear out of the ordinary. As presently written, the article is blatantly promotional. The single claim that might be notable, that of being named "Best New York Commercial Real Estate Attorney" by Mann Magazine, seems either untrue or insignificant, given that Mann is a Norwegian magazine aimed at young men, and it is not clear that young Norwegian men constitute a large part of the New York real estate market. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Some subsequent searching indicates that the Mann Magazine reference in the article probably refers to a publication entitled MANN Report, a New York City local publication profiling "the names behind the deals" in New York City real estate. This makes the designation less unlikely, but not much more notable. (And still unverifiable, as the publication's website does not offer a search feature.)  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Verifiability does not require that the article be available online. A print publication should be available at some libraries. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The claim about "best attorney" can be confirmed at http://www.ovedlaw.com/outside-the-o/MANN_Invitation_01.pdf This document was published by the MANN Foundation, but is hosted on the Oved law firm's server. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As mentioned above, the veracity of the claim of "best attorney", as awarded by a small, niche-market publication, does not really bolster Oved's notability. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:BIO.  Googling turned up nothing useful.  Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION.  Msnicki (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to clarify some of the issues referenced in the previously posted items. Firstly, the article clearly states that the award was given by the publication entitled MANN Report and not Mann Magazine. Secondly, the MANN Report is not a small, niche-market publication, as suggested by the poster “Wikidan 61.” To the contrary, the MANN Report has been a reputable and well-known publication in the real estate industry since 1998. The publication, in fact, has achieved such high levels of success that it has generated three additional real-estate magazines. A link has been provided to the MANN Report award to further affirm that Mr. Oved was in fact the recipient of this honor.
 * Furthermore, Mr. Oved has published numerous articles in the New York Law Journal, all of which have been annexed to his page for independent verification. Additionally, various links have been provided to Real Deal articles, all discussing the numerous high-profile real estate transactions that Mr. Oved has been an integral part of. These involvements were not an attempt to get his name in the paper, as suggested by Wikidan61, but rather serve as recognition of Mr. Oved’s continuing involvement in the real estate industry. Lastly, the claim that the page lacks independent secondary sources to establish reliability is groundless and unconvincing, given that links have been provided for any and all references cited on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahbern (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * —Sarahbern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I'm not convinced you know what a reliable independent secondary source is. Please consult WP:RS for more.  Articles by the subject and those influenced by subject don't count towards notability.  Msnicki (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Whereas the article states that Mr Oved's award came from the MANN Report, the version of the article that was nominated for deletion reported the award from Mann Magazine. I had already noted in a postscript to my nomination (see above) that the award mostly likely came from the MANN Report.  The reputability of this publication cannot be easily assessed, as there does not appear to be much online commentary about the matter; but one must take into account that the majority of the publication's feature article content is written by the subjects of the features themselves (i.e. it serves more as an advertorial venue than anything else).  The claim that Oved was named as "Best New York Commercial Real Estate Attorney" is actually incorrect: he was named as a "MANN of the Year" - one of 43 such honorees for 2009.  As for the significance of this honor: this appears to be largely a fundraising event, and little information is available about the selection criteria by which the honorees are selected.  As for Oved's contributions to New York Law Journal, these three submissions (hardly numerous by any standard), all appearing in NYLJ's "Outside Counsel" feature (which appears, by the editorial guidelines to be a forum for any lawyer to write an article on any topic they find interesting), do not appear to go beyond run of the mill legal work.  Finally, the links to The Real Deal mention Oved as the attorney of record in a number of New York City real estate deals, but do not actually provide any significant coverage (and in some cases are as little as "Mr. Oved had no comment.").  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * CommentI cannot help but presume from the nature and tone of his prior posts that Wikidan61 has a personal issue with the subject of this debate, Terrence Oved. At first, the comments seemed an innocent attempt to correct what was thought to be an error regarding Mr. Oved’s award from the MANN Report, but it is clear that it has devolved into a targeted, and seemingly personal, campaign aimed at disparaging Mr. Oved’s character. Rather than being unbiased and concerned with verifiability, Wikidan61 has taken every possible opportunity to insult and deride Mr. Oved and has diminished every verifiable honor and distinction mentioned on the page. These are not the actions of a disinterested third-party with the goal of ensuring that Wikipedia remains an unbiased site.
 * It is unclear why it should matter whether Wikidan61 personally believes the MANN Report, New York Law Journal or the Real Deal are particularly important or well-recognized publications. The fact remains that every item published on the page is independently verifiable with direct links to the original posts. To my knowledge, Wikidan61 has not been declared an authority as to which publications are worthy of receiving mention and recognition on Wikipedia. The only possible remaining solution is that Wikidan61, the alleged proponent of objectivism, possesses a vendetta against Mr. Oved and has chosen to react by taking calculated steps to diminish Mr. Oved’s distinction and recognition as an important figure in the New York City legal community. Wikidan61’s comments, therefore, should be given no credence, given that they are obviously the product of a malicious person intent on discrediting Mr. Oved’s reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahbern (talk • contribs)
 * — Sarahbern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sarahbern: [W]hy it should matter whether Wikidan61 personally believes the MANN Report, New York Law Journal or the Real Deal are particularly important or well-recognized publications is unclear to you only because you still have not read WP:RS as already requested. In the meantime, please spare us the legalistic bloviating, though it's hard to believe an actual attorney could confuse, as you do, objectivity (an approach to forming judgments) with objectivism (as in Ayn Rand).
 * Anyway, Sarahbern, your attention is called to this passage from WP:GAFD:
 * One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process.  A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in"...  Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism.  Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.
 * And finally, Sarahbern, also of interest here may be the following, from WP:COI ("conflict of interest"):
 * COI editing is routinely exposed and can be reported adversely in the media. All edits are on the public record and remain so indefinitely...While Wikipedians generally avoid naming editors and their paymasters, other media routinely do. This has led at times to extreme media embarrassment for the company or organization, dismissal (firing) of those at fault, and at times even court actions or charges, if done in a work or professional context.
 * EEng (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. If there any relationship between "SarahBern" and "Jbernhardt" (both of which were created only after this AfD began, and have made no edits other than to this discussion and the subject article), or between either of them and the subject of the article, it is appropriate for you to disclose that relationship here and now. See WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, WP:COI.
 * EEng (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Ms Bern would do well to remember to assume good faith. I have no personal issues at stake in this discussion.  My only interest is assuring that Wikipedia's guidelines are followed.  My intentions at this discussion have nothing to do with Mr. Oved or his reputation.  I only intend to initiate and continue a discussion as to whether Mr. Oved has met the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia.  Whether he has or has not has no bearing on his reputation.  And I will agree with Ms Bern on one point -- I am not an authority as to which publications are worthy of "receiving mention and recognition on Wikipedia".  This issue has no bearing on the present discussion.  The point of this discussion is to allow other editors the opportunity to review the subject article and decide whether they think it merits inclusion.  Clearly, I believe it doesn't.  Clearly, Ms Bern believes it does.  I think it would serve the rest of the community well if she and I kept quiet and let other voices be heard.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. His publications in the New York Law journal are good, but don't pass the bar of WP:ACADEMIC. Being quoted in a newspaper indicates that he's good at self-promotion, but doesn't indicate notability. The award, although from a reputable publication, isn't of sufficient renown to imply notability in the absence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant promotion, by an employee of the subject, of the most vulgar and self-serving kind. Why do people insist on embarassing themselves (and their employers) this way? EEng (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."
 * 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.