Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Roy

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. Lara ❤Love 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Roy

This article, which was created and mostly edited by a now-blocked sockpuppet army, is a coatrack for uncited criticism. It has almost no biographical content. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know who created it, but some of his work was good, and some of the people he wrote article on were notable--I dont want to judge by revenge, great though the temptation. She had a large number of publications, and I think enough comments on them for notability DGG (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reason above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument presented for deletion could just as easily be taken as a call to improve the article. News coverage on Roy's work is easily sufficient to establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who created it and whether there was uncited criticism is irrelevant. Sara Roy is much too prominent and well known for Wikipedia to not have an article on her. There's a lot that's well-known that isn't in the article now, like both her parents being holocaust survivors[1], think she currently has some temporary appointment in England as the director of something or other. Web and recentist bias may be a factor. This is not a close call.John Z (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, take a look at this book at google[2] the essay I referred to above is reprinted in this collection of "Prophets Outcast" as far as I can tell, she would be the only contributor to not have an article on Wikipedia if this is deleted. Unfortunately the (probably brief) biographical information there, which could be good 3rd party source is on a restricted page. There is little question about her notability though; she's the world's leading authority on the economy of the Gaza Strip under Israel. Even this general guidebook to Israel sees fit to mention her authority in this field.[3]John Z (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that you're mistaken when you write "whether there was uncited criticism is irrelevant". Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, "Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source, and unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons". (emphasis added) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I say Keep, because she doesn't seem to be completely non-notable, because she appears to have published her articles in respectable outlets. However the secondary third-party sources written about her, which are more important for establishing notability appear rather weak to me - hence weak keep. I understand what makes the nominator think that this is a coatracking article, but i don't think that is too severe in this case. Other opinions are welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep article needs major improvement but, the subject seems notable enough. I think expanding the article and formatting it a little better may help. Question though, I think I've seen the article up for deletion before. I'm not sure how to check this though. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clicking on "links" next to the article name, there doesn't appear to be any previous AfD that links to the article. Also, the article's Talk page doesn't mention any previous AfD. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jasynnash. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If all the references are legit, it seems clear that she is notable. I'm not saying it is totally neutral or well constructed, but that seems irrelevant here. maxsch (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2008 (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.