Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dror Bikel

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. ✗plicit 06:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dror Bikel

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is slightly promotional, but anyways right now the only sourcing is about a court case with Judith Giuliani and other people and press releases. there's an interview but that doesn't work for sourcing so this fails notability. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Law, Israel, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed 109.255.35.74 (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask (as the creator)? Where is the GNG in the Wiki about Nancy Chemtob? MereSavel (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely trying to format this article to meet GNG and have looked at Robert Stephan Cohen as an example and cannot find where the qualifying source is. MereSavel (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you genuinely believe that the Chemtob and Cohen articles both lack qualifying sources and that you can find no others (take a look at WP:BEFORE), feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. Ravenswing 21:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question here is: can anyone point out the qualifying source in Nancy Chemtob or Robert Stephan Cohen? I believe there must be a qualifying source and would like to know what that is so that I can highlight my article's qualifying source in a similar fashion. MereSavel (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon what basis do you believe that there are qualifying sources for those articles? Obviously there are any number of articles on Wikipedia that fall short. Tens of thousands of such articles are nominated for deletion from one process or another a year, but with nearly seven million articles, you can understand that some slip through the cracks for years. Sometimes many years. In any event, none of us are likely to analyze articles that are not now up for discussion without some strong reason to do so. All such deletion discussions are taken on their own merits. Ravenswing 10:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep: The content has been revised to include only cited, objective content. The article is encyclopedic as it is a useful resource for individuals training and working in the legal field as well as laypersons who wish to reference the counsel that handled certain publicized cases. MereSavel (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources meet notability requirements as legal commentator

Featured in The New York Times, People, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Inside Edition.

Provided commentary for Inside Edition, Brandi Glanville Unfiltered, Australia's The Briefing podcast, Bloomberg Wealth, Yahoo Finance, Gothamist, Newsmax, New York Post, Law.com, The Art Newspaper, and The Guardian. 174.247.179.180 (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous news sources name this individual. Meets notability as legal commentator

People

MereSavel (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MereSavel, you can only vote once. It would also be helpful if you could use WP:THREE to provide clear sourcing that appropriately supports your vote, thanks. She was ^afairy 02:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The advocacy (and reference bombing) of the article creator notwithstanding, the subject just plain fails notability standards, and meets none of the requirements of the GNG. Being a "legal commentator" satisfies no notability standard, and two dozen casual namedrops, bylines or press releases do no more so than one. I recommend that MereSavel review WP:GNG and WP:BIO going forward for a better understanding of Wikipedia's requirements. Ravenswing 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a bad article, though could be cleaned up. The problem is that not one source is about the subject. So it shouldn't be cleaned up. It should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; sources are just mentions of the subject so no SIGCOV. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.