Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Shafiroff

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Epeefleche: I would not have tagged Jamescur as an WP:SPA if I were you. But in any case all this doesn't matter, what matters is the strength of the arguments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep in light of the sockpuppetry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Shafiroff

Jean Shafiroff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

Not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia, not notable, with very few original sources. A strong scent of WP:PROMOTION. The article is about a non-notable individual who has received several inconsequential mentions on various social blogs and has numerous photographs on paid photography sites, such as Patrick McMullan. The article is promotional and an advertisement for a non-notable socialite and research confirms it was created by the same PR firm that is promoting this individual on social media and other blogs. Therefore, delete Ceylobo (Ceylobo (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Agree w/ nom. No obvious indicator of notability here. NickCT (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick. I haven't come across you at AfD for awhile. As to your comment, did you write that after reading the articles I point to, and the other RS coverage of the subject? And after considering GNG? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That she receives substantial RS coverage for serving on boards, being a philanthropist, and being a socialite is of no moment – we cover those people as well, if they meet GNG.
Contrary to nom's assertion (nom should try wp:before next time), there are many sources, the article is not promotional (if it were, editing not deletion would be the proper course of action), and nom's OR and outing of whoever first wrote the article is both irrelevant (the article stands on its own merits) and not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that a profile on the Business Insider and Donor of the Day blurb in the WSJ clearly demonstrates Wiki Notability, is utterly ludicrous. We all know that the B/I has one of those entires on just about anyone who is on a charity board. Does that make every single person who is a board member of a charity Notable for Wiki purposes??? Likewise, for example, should everyone who makes the Donor of the Day column in the WSJ be fodder for an encyclopedic article??? As for any suggestion that this is not promotional, can anyone expound as to the real purpose of a socialite being featured in a full page encyclopedic biography (who has no independent relevance whatsoever, other than for just being a socialite)?? I most certainly wish to know because I am sincerely starting to doubt the value of Wikipedia's relevance as a true encyclopedia??? (Ceylobo (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Note: Ceylobo (who nominated this article for deletion) has been blocked indefinitely. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I agree with regret that the article is likely a professional advertisement cleverly disguised as an encyclopedia article, the fact remains that the subject does in fact meet both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it's this nasty cold, but I can't really smell WP:PROMOTION like the nom seems to be able to. I'd much fancy an explanation about that~ ~Helicopter Llama~ 21:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@~Helicopter - Have you read the current life section. That looks like how my resume is written. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful news, Nick -- let's write a wp article about you as well; I'm quite impressed by the substantial coverage of you in RSs. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Epee - I've so missed your cute and pugnacious attitude. NickCT (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Professional advertisement that reads like a resume. The subject is not notable nor suitable for a biographical entry on WP. I do hope I am not blocked for voicing my honest opinion on the subject :) (Jamescur (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
— Jamescur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I don't think its fair to imply that I am a single purpose account when I have been a member since 2012. Although I have contributed infrequently due to my work schedule, I have done so on many different subjects/topics and have absolutely no axe to grind with this subject in particular :) (Jamescur (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
You certainly are an SPA. But the closing admin can review the facts and decide for himself. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am??? That's certainly news to me. But then again, you seem to be the know-it-all of WP who blocks editors that disagree with you, so I guess your false accusations must somehow be correct and I must be mistaken or perhaps even delusional. Enjoy your evening Epeefleche :) (207.237.211.246 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Jamescur/207.237.211.246, I suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL before continuing your editing on Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you reddogsix, I most certainly will. But I suggest Epeefleche do the same before making false accusations that I am an SPA. Although it should be axiomatic, I will point out that he cannot make uncivil false accusations and expect civility from me in return. Goodnight (Jamescur (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Jamescur -- you appear to be the only editor who is of the view that I made a false accusation. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the only view that matters as, axiomatically, I would know better than any other editor if I was an SPA or not. Goodnight (Jamescur (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Untrue. As you will discover at the close, your view as to whether you are an SPA is not "the only view that matters." If it remains that you are the only one of that view, including the closer ... then you will be deemed an SPA for purposes of this AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And no doubt the closer will reach that conclusion Epeefleche because you will strong-arm them into doing so. This article was nom by Ceylobo after two very experienced Wiki admins noted in their edit comments that the article was NN. Immediately upon nom, another very experienced Wiki editor supported deletion. Yet from the moment of your Strong Keep, not a single other editor has joined this discussion. Why?? Because they are afraid to do so. Multiple editors talk about how, and I merely quote so kindly refrain from calling me UNCIVL, you act "psychotic[ally] bullying, strong-arming and blocking other editors and then striking through their edits to wipe their existence off the face of Wikipedia." These comments are noted all over the web on discussion boards. [redacted] I think Wiki is a lost cause if they are going to let someone like you control the content on this site. Of course, I have no doubt that you will now have one of your sock-puppets block me indefinitely like you did the nom (Jamescur (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
hey yall needa chill out like for real i dont think we should fight fire with fire even if metallica tells us to or whateverer. this is an afd discussion, nothing about SPAs (although it sounds like we all need a spa getaway), and the kinds of attacks from both sides are really just uncalled for. i mean, i don't have huge experience with editing here but i know that this has nothing to do with the discussion so just chill out it's wikipedia for pete's sake ~Helicopter Llama~ 15:05, 21 April 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jean_Shafiroff&oldid=1137945691"