Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Pincus-Roth


 * 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. Consensus is keep (though article can do with improvement), and it appears to have been a bad-faith nomination to begin with. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Zachary Pincus-Roth

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Badly written autobiography by yet another foolio with a sinister agenda. Hats off to tarantino who is doing his best to keep you folks honest. Only thing that's on my mind is, can you, can you handle this? Nora The Terrible (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep Subject is notable, tone is balanced, and article is sourced. What are the grounds for deletion? What does "hats off to tarantino" even mean? Bangabandhu (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Blatant self-promotion. Fancy you showing up here, Bangabandhu. Things must be getting lonely over at the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance in Arlington, VA. https://archive.is/VfHjr (Thank you, tarantino, for that link). I don't think you're ready for this jelly. And don't pretend you don't know who tarantino is. Everybody who is anybody on here knows tarantino. He's the gorgeous to your ... not so gorgeous. Nora The Terrible (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the point of this? Please read WP:WIA. I note that recently created pages by Nora The Terrible are far better candidates for deletion, namely Assaf Ramon. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooh. WP:WIA. That's a novel one. Shiver me timbers.


 * As for your attempts at shifting the focus from your act of self-promotion to one of the articles created by yours truly, you don't have kids, do you? And you know nothing about the Ramon family, am I right? That article about young Assaf is here to stay, like it or not. Unlike you, he had a purpose that had nothing to do with inflicting pain unto others, and he made his mother proud. Nora The Terrible (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not I have kids or know him personally is irrelevant. That entry should be merged with Ilan Ramon and I am going to make a proposal accordingly. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Girlfriend! What *did* I *tell* you? Lie with dogs, wake up with a franchise in a lucrative little flea farm in Phobiadelphia and a balding ADHD grammar nazi for a neighbor. Just as well your better-looking half told me you'll be dropping in on us next week. We are so getting the band back together. Don't you dare wimp out on me this time! Yeah, you can sing with your back to the audience. Like I care. Anyhow, this discussion needs more ice cream. Tartufo di Pizzo Calabro Gelateria Ercole 2.JPG And I'd say baleet that youngster's self-promoting article into outer space, but I guess lil Zachary here would accuse me of WP:SILKSCREEN or some such nonsense if I put in an actual vote. What a vindictive winker for messing with your article. Anyhow, where's that useless when you need her? Lemme guess, drunk out of her skull in some dive bar with her latest boy toy and unable to remember her password. Drummers. Can't live with them... Roberta Benigni (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose someone might find this funny, but I doubt they're the type that would visit this page. Why are you doing this? Can I suggest that you look elsewhere for the audience you crave? While we're trying to divine identities (which I think is highly inappropriate) I would bet that Roberta Benigni and Nora The Terrible are the same editors. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete he does not meet GNG. If you think there is another grounds for inclusion, I may change my vote if pinged. --JumpLike23 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment To the extent that there are Wikipedia requirements for journalists, this entry satisfies all of those criteria - Pincus Roth is a senior editor at a major publication. The article does not now, but could with a bit of editing, list many more of his publications. As for your comment about WP:GNG, check out the guidelines on WP:BIO. There's nothing specific to journalists on there, but there is for creative professionals, which is probably the most suitable category listed. One of the criteria is that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Check out the number of citations of his work here. Would like be eager to hear more about what you're thinking, thanks. Bangabandhu (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The tone and content that were used to first propose this deletion review make it difficult to WP:GF among those editors. I perceive the nomination as weird or flippant at best and possibly malicious. Bangabandhu (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be sourced and he is referenced in other newspaper articles and has received some awards.Cathar66 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I was satisfied by the number of citations in google scholar. And, I don't like the tone of the nomination. --JumpLike23 (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there is a lot of sources there are no independent reliable sources that have any depth of coverage about him. The awards are not major. Notability (journalists) is a failed proposal so should not be used. Citation numbers are trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per JumpLike23. The formatting of the citations present in the article is a mess, and more of the reliable sources that exist should be cited, but that's hardly a basis for deleting it. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 06:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: both (the AfD nominator) and  (who commented here) have been blocked for socking. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:32, 7 October 2015 (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.