Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Mermelstein

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. No support for deletion apart from the nominator and at least one independent editor thinks the article meets the notabilty guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mermelstein[edit]

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

DELETE Does not appear to meet ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:BIO. Subject is a Manhattan real estate attorney who gets quoted for comment by publications, but as far as I can tell after some Googling, he himself has not been the subject of in-depth coverage beyond a "who's who" type profile in the New York Observer last year, and it's telling that no other articles link here. Also, the article has been written for the most part by his firm's PR agency, and if kept, would probably need a rewrite. Mosmof (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual sold more real estate than anyone else @ 15 CPW, which is NY's most expensive development. That alone is legendary. Beyond that, Business Week, The Observer and countless others have featured him. Surely he's very noteable. (and the Observer wasnt a whos who it ranked top 15 real estate NY lawyers, and he was featured.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Yes he is an attorney and developer, and 1 of the most successful in the US representing oligarchs who buy. Clearly thats a major big deal on its own. Stong keep (and Mosmof, mentioning the NY Observer article alone makes it relevant and noteable.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 05:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above users are likely the same person, I'll respond to both together. First, you're using "featured" very liberally, to mean "quoted" and "mentioned". What WP:BIO requires is in-depth coverage of a subject, and none of the sources cited qualifies - the NY Observer profile is brief by any reasonable standard. Second, appearing in various publications does not make a subject notable. It could just mean that he has a good publicist and keeps him in contact with the press. Now, if you can find a reliable, third party source talk about how he's always quoted in Manhattan real estate articles, then great. Otherwise, making a claim about how he's always in the papers amounts to original research. --Mosmof (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 07:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A feature surely means being included in the list of most noteable people in NY Real Estate for perhaps the most prestigious NY Real Estate publication. Business Week and Bloomberg were extensive features, as was Observer. Check Google news today and see if he's "always quoted in Manhattan real estate articles" as you say is the criteria. Seems to be a strong yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a further KEEP would come from reading the Subjects talk page and see that this same user tried this same tactic 6 months ago and similarly then was defeated. Check Mermelsteins public record since then. Countless coverage and success. Very noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.21.194 (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to try to pass yourself off as a different person, you might want to try a different writing style and a new misspelling for "notable". But anyway, please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I'm saying that "always quoted in Manhattan real estate articles" is not a criterion for WP:BIO (and for the love of Buddha, would it kill you to actually read the policies in discussion?). It doesn't matter how often he's quoted or mentioned. The question is whether he's a subject of in-depth coverage - that, you have yet to demonstrate. Mosmof (talk) 00:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmof wasnt aware that your criteria for noteability is in-depth coverage. And yes, Business Week and Observer features would constitue in-depth coverage. You tried this tactic 6 months ago and were defeated. If nothings changed pls lets agree the page should remain intact. His case is now stronger. Are you saying being named 1 of the most prominent NYC attorneys alone isnt noteable ? Isnt selling more than anyone else in NYCs most expensive building noteable ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of god, please learn to read. It's not MY criteria. It's basic rules of Wikipedia - do read WP:BIO, please? And what are these "Business Week and Observer features" that you speak of? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you're ignoring the difference between "mention" and "coverage". Memelstein is mentioned a lot, but I have yet to see a single feature article about him. What do you mean "this tactic"? You mean rules and common sense and trying to reason with you? Mosmof (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmof you sound like a broken record. Removing this entry has tried and failed, whats new about trying to remove it and it failed a few months ago ? yes it is your criteria nowhere does it say how many media mentions/features are needed. and I'd argue that the OBserver and Business Week are in fact features. They are. What changes do you propose to keep this live ? (make them here before you make them there). This is 1 of foremost leaders in NY Real estate he's very prominent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and keep. Meets WP:GNG: [1] and [2] are about the subject, and there are dozens of other mentions in the Google News archives that assume notability. But the article as currently written doesn't come close to meeting Wikipedia standards, and should be stubified. THF (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See, I looked at the same two articles and saw articles about real estate that happen to mention Mermelstein and his dealings, not articles about him. Most of the other mentions in Google News are pullquotes. With the absence of in-depth coverage, it's going to be difficult to have enough verifiable information to build anything more than a stub. Mosmof (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have rewritten and added details. Is this now OK ? There is plenty of verifiably and important information. Others have suggested edits ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it needs a lot more work than that, but I'm happy to help. But in the meantime, please do read up on Wikipedia policies and WP:MOS. Mosmof (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THis has been raised before by much the same characters and should now be acceptable. Clearly newsworthy and meets news standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done a rewrite using the sources we already had and left out what I thought were extraneous details or plaudits. There's still some biographical details missing and not sure if the article will expand beyond stub level, but it's a little better now, I think? Mosmof (talk) 05:15, 11 November 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.