Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mermelstein (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mermelstein

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

Initiating second AfD nomination on behalf of User:Ravpapa. Rationale (partly refering to the first AfD from Nov 2010) is: --Pgallert (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I am renominating this article for deletion. This article is about a real estate broker and attorney in New York. He is one of 12,518 such brokers listed in the New York Yellow Pages. His main, nay, his only, distinction is that he has a PR agent who understands that the road to notability passes through the portals of this noble institution. His PR agent, or a person acting on his behest (User:babasalichai), has been banned for sockpuppetry. By means of such sockpuppetry, the PR agent convinced the AFD administrator that there was no consensus for deletion, by the clever expedient of voting keep numerous times in the guise of numerous avatars.

The one keep vote that did not come from Mr. Sock came from user THF, a respected and senior Wikipedia editor. I am asking THF to reconsider his vote: Mr. Mermelstein is not notable. He has done nothing of note, he has never argued a landmark case, his opinions are not quoted in law journals, his views on real estate, when published (if ever), are marginal. There are thousands of hardworking, imaginative, and important attorneys who do not have Wikipedia articles; there is no reason that this guy should be here"

Delete While a lot of the references are press statements and passing mentions, I think there is no question this person passes WP:GNG. None of the independent sources are actually about him, but they do go into sufficient detail. On the other hand I do not believe there is any doubt Mermelstein passes any other notability guideline. So I believe this case is about the word presumed in the GN guideline. The subject is completely run-of-the-mill, as the initiator of this discussion eloquently points out. In a way this article could be A7-ed because it does not even attempt to point out any specific fact that makes Mermelstein special. As the presumed in GNG can only be rebutted by WP:NOT, I think the policy reasons to delete this are WP:NOTYELLOW, point 2, and WP:NOTWHOSWHO, point 4. --Pgallert (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, let me clarify that I am familiar with the article creator's history of puppetry, and that they were clearly trying to use wikipedia to promote some entities and disparage others. That being said, I don't see how we can possibly argue that, having met WP:GNG (for me, the Bloomberg article plus the Commercial Observer slide meet that requirement, with the rest being less "in depth" but in total being enough), the subject isn't notable in a Wikipedia sense. If the subject were completely run-of-the-mill, they wouldn't be discussed in detail in Bloomberg or asked their opinion in New York magazine. This isn't a Who's Who listing, it's a biographical description of a New York lawyer who appears to be more notable than the typical New York lawyer. And this is certainly not a genealogical entry--significant descriptions of multiple aspects of his life are included, not just simple familial records. So, even though I would not be surprised if this article was created as part of a more general PR campaign on behalf of the subject, that doesn't automatically render the subject non-notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But being more notable than the typical X cannot possibly be a reason for inclusion? Otherwise, replace X with "rice farmer", "tuck shop", or "government memo", and see what happens. I've been occasionally quoted in national newspapers, and I certainly do not expect an article about me any time soon. Being asked for an opinion on your area of expertise is a totally normal exercise which happens to many professionals. --Pgallert (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't mean "more notable than typical" = "Wikipedia notable". But I can't figure out what your (personal) notability criteria are; if being featured in one article, being one of 12 featured in another, and covered to a lesser degree in a bunch more articles isn't notable...how do you determine what is notable? I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you want to overcome the presumption built into passing WP:GNG, you need a pretty strong explanation, which I don't see in your comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - None of us like people using illicit accounts to skew an AfD result — but that's not what we're discussing here. I find sufficient outside coverage of the subject, such as THIS ARTICLE from Bloomberg to indicate that this individual meets our General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's also this The Real Deal magazine interview and an interview with Fox Business News. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People at the higher levels of any profession are notable. I think our reluctance to admit the notability of businesspeople might indicate a certain degree of conscious or unconscious intellectual snobbery. I personally have a rather strong prejudice against the importance of some of the occupations that Wikipedia covers very intensely, and personal indifference for the individuals' accomplishments, , but it I hope it does not affect by judgment or cause me to be dismissive of them. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 1 April 2011 (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.