Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akiva Tatz

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 per near-unanimity of responses, WP:HEY. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akiva Tatz[edit]

Unsourced biography which fails WP:BIO, arguably WP:BLP, and lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nomination although article may have been made in good faith. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of additions made by DRosenbach. I invite other editors who have opined to delete to take the article under fresh consideration. It's proper to propose an article for deletion when notability hasn't been established, but it's great when an AfD debate results in improvments and address of issues rather than deletion. - House of Scandal (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your redress. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination the subject does not pass WP:BIO and lacks reliable sources necessary for biographies of living persons. RFerreira (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article now contains reliable sources and does pass WP:BIO. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of recent changes. The article has been transformed into a near-speedy candidate to an article which conforms to WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsourced material is to be cited as needing sources -- not deleted. Articles mustn't be required to be fully stocked at inception. Rabbi Tatz is extremely notable in his field (Orthodox Jewish outreach), and as the "allegations" made by the as-of-yet unsourced material is not nearly besmirching him, there is no need to rush in and save him from being touted as "originating from South Africa." Nearly 1,000 Google hits for someone makes good promise for content that will be added as the stub naturally grows. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To respond to "DRosenbach" it appears that sources have been requested since August 2007. 12 months ago. I think we've all waited long enough. They obviously don't exist, time to move on. JBsupreme (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how long it's been a poorly written article -- it is now substantiated. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submit for an 11th hour respite -- this is the first time I have even come across this article. There is now independant, third-party information establishing his popularity as a worldwide speaker, being invited to speak at research seminars in London, Switzerland, at NYU Medical School and more, and is the founder of the Jerusalem Ethics Group. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't examined the version that was nominated for deletion but the current version adequately establishes notability. JamesMLane t c 18:21, 4 August 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.