Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Rosenwald

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. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Rosenwald[edit]

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

BLP issues and NN. Aside from original sources that promote her biography, the main source for this article was written by Max Blumenthal in The Nation called “The Sugar Mama of Anti-Muslim Hate.” It is referenced 7 times. This is clearly a smear piece written by a partisan author in a highly political magazine of a different political persuasion than that of Rosenwald’s. She is a staunch Zionist while he is a tough critic of Zionism and what he calls the “Israel Lobby”. As a philanthropist she gives money to pro-Zionist organizations, most notably the Gatestone Institute. There is a legitimate concern that occasionally some writers have published anti-Muslim articles but that doesn’t support the insinuation by Blumenthal that this was the purpose of her funding and her Muslim friends defend her. This is the core of the BLP—a smear attack and the response. The sections on her family wikilink to their BLPs and her educational section has no sources. If one removes those sections and self-promotional websites, the bulk of the article is the Blumenthal smear attack. This controversy can and should be covered in the article on the Gatestone Institute as it is about this publication (a partial merge is suggested). Donors often given editorial freedom to their writers and do not necessarily endorse everything written. It is more about the organization and its publication. A BLP based on a smear attack shouldn’t exist. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jason. Articles should not be unreliable, slanted, one-sided, propaganda-piece hit jobs. David A (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Nina Rosenwald is a very significant figure, whether or not you agree with what she stands for, or how the present article presents her. And she is involved/supports a lot of other groups, besides the Gatestone Institute. If editors thinks the article reflects her in a biased fashion, then the solution is to fix the article, not to delete it. Huldra (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hudra's comment sounds right on to me. AimlessWonderer (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We've tried for many years to find info on her but she just isn't notable. If she is very significant one would expect there to be evidence of that aside from the attack articles by political partisans. Let me remind everyone that the rules for WP:BLP say we must "take particular care when adding information about living persons" and this "material requires a high degree of sensitivity" using only "high-quality sources." Such articles "must be written conservatively" in a "non-partisan manner" and avoid material written "primarily to disparage the subject." Jason from nyc (talk) 11:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:NPOV-problem is no reason to delete an article. The best way to solve a NPOV-problem is by solving the NPOV-problem. Options are editing, or just reverting to an older version in which there is less emphasis on the "smear piece written by a partisan author." Like this old version, for example. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff, you have contributed to this article since it conception in 2013. Don't you think that if we haven't found sources to solve the NPOV problem by now they may not exist? The old version was changed by consensus but let's look at it. References 2, 9, 10, 11, & 12 are info the subject submitted herself. References 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are about her ancestors who have BLP for their story. What does that leave? Basically 1 & 14 are about her and written by others who are attacking her. This gives the impression that the attack articles make her notable and the rest is filler from her own supplied pages or her family's Wiki's biographies. Since that time the material extracted from #14 has expanded to so that this source is cited 6 times. I suggest we tried hard to find independent sources that show her notable but BLP considerations, to write "conservatively" and avoid material written "primarily to disparage the subject," suggest we have a BLP problem. Other have noted this in the talk over the years with one person writing in 2013 that "quite a lot of work to be done on the article, and that is what we are here for" ... others above are saying the same. We've tried. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jason, thank you for your response. I still do not believe that this NPOV-problem is a valid reason for deleting an article, but that is me. For example, we still can insert this article in it to make it more balanced. Or something of these newsletters, when she was in the board of the National Democratic Institute until 1986. That said, I truly hope that the moderator, who will close this discussion, will not determine a decision by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument (as per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No Jeff5102, it is not just you. Other people recognize that a perceived POV problem is a bad reason to suggest deletion. I did a google search, contrary to what the nomination seems to assert, there are references.
Nomination seems to be written from a serious misconception as to the meaning of WP:NPOV. Nomination complains that the references are biased. This is why we have policies and guidelines to help us write neutral articles that are based on RS that weren't written to comply with wikipedia neutrality in mind. Practically no RS aims to measure up to wikipedia neutrality standards. So we attribute opinions to those who offered them. Geo Swan (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2016 (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.