Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Isacovici

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. Sandstein 07:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salomon Isacovici[edit]

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

Salomon Isacovici does not appear to be of sufficient notability to justify the article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL may also apply. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of edits, it also appears that there is breack of WP:SOC - not at all a reason for deletion in itself, but something to possibly to be aware of in considering the deletion (and, indeed, this discussion). Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote, since I'm not a registered user. I would advise keeping this article, however. There are publishes sources written about him, some of which are quoted in the article, independent of the subject. Since he died over ten years, I don't think this article was intended as a memorial. I am not a sock puppet myself - I used to contribute as an editor, but I never edited this article during that time. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to the individual, by the way, and no conflict of interest. Having just reread Wikipedia:Notability (people), I'd be curious to know where Isacovici fails to meet the criteria. Thanks, 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requirements for authors can be found at WP:AUTHOR. There is no evidence that Isacovici meets these criteria. I can find only one review of his only published work (here), which is included in what itself does not appear to be a particularly notable source. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that sources should be notable, but just that they should be reliable, which a book published by Routledge should be. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's notable for what the article and the sources say: being one of a minority of Holocaust survivors and authors of memoirs who is resident in Latin America. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently well sourced. Where's the other side of the controversy? There is one, but it isn't sufficiently sourced. Thus, the article is biased Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Biased articles do not get deleted. They get improved by adding reliable secondary sources so that any controversy can be described from a neutral point of view. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources in the article, plus the one linked by Wikipeterproject above, amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, passing the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar, all show results of reliable sources mentioning this man, his book, and his work. Dream Focus 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article as it is now, but could have more inline citations added.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's an award-winning author who clearly passes WP:GNG. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:42, 14 January 2010 (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.