Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliyahu Federman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eliyahu Federman[edit]
- Eliyahu Federman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN orphaned, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1saleaday and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1saleaday (2nd nomination) Aaabbccz (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. On the 1saleaday AfDs, the first closed with no consensus, and the second closed with a speedy keep, because the nomination was made by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely-blocked user. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. Subject appears to satisfy WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per C.Fred. Peridon (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep agree with C. Fred and Peridon. Full disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia policies: I created the Eliyahu Federman page. It deserves keep, seems well organized, structured and certainly has nobility (Nazi protest of Ted Junker, challenging Beth Din gag order, trademark case worthy of article in the World Trademark Review and etc) and is very well sourced with over 20 cites including from the NY Times, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and other reliable secondary sources. JohnMelder (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. This debate was never transcluded onto a log. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and send to clean up per alternatives to deletion as topic meets the general notability guide. Also suggest this could now be a speedy keep, as there are no delete opinions other than the nominator, and nominator's error in not transcluding it resulted in its expected close on February 19 as somehow slipping past the radar. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:14, 28 February 2011 (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.