Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel D. Wallach

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 delete. WP:BIO, with an eye towards the requirement for unbiased sources in a BLP-related article j⚛e decker ^talk 16:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel D. Wallach

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

I'm not able to find adequate independent, reliable sources to substantiate notability here - especially not sources which meet the high bar set for a biographical article. I believe that this subject doesn't currently meet the WP:BIO notability requirements. MastCell ^Talk 16:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the first place, he does not pass the notability bar - all I could find at Google News Archive was announcements of his seminars. In the second place, it fails verifiability; I could not find any Independent Reliable Sources on which to base a biographical article. And in the third place, it violates neutrality; the article appears to have been written only to discredit him. Maybe he deserves to be discredited, I express no opinion about that - but the article as written is not neutral and I could not find sources to make it neutral. (I see from the history that there has been considerable edit warring over this, with some people adding positive material and others deleting it for being unsourced. The article in its current state contains only the criticism-type material.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thank you - I think that's exactly the problem. With a lack of independent, reliable sources, the article will remain in a tug-of-war between inappropriately sourced promotion of the subject and inappropriately sourced denigration of the subject. That's not a good situation for an article, especially not for a BLP. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His notability is hardly rock-bottom but it's certainly low, and that leads to another problem: When a subject is controversial, sources tend to take firmly "pro" or "anti" positions, and with just a handful of those sources it's impossible to build a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the notability is marginal at best, and a truly neutral article is impossible at this point given the paucity of high quality independent sources. Yobol (talk) 03:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I agree with Bobrayner when he stated "When a subject is controversial, sources tend to take firmly "pro" or "anti" positions, and with just a handful of those sources it's impossible to build a neutral article." However, he has recently recieved attention from notable sources: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/al-international-jcof-announces-results-130000091.html Pottinger's cats (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I change my position to Delete: unless we have the yahoo finance press release as our main source, Mastcell's comment stands - "Yes, thank you - I think that's exactly the problem. With a lack of independent, reliable sources, the article will remain in a tug-of-war between inappropriately sourced promotion of the subject and inappropriately sourced denigration of the subject. That's not a good situation for an article, especially not for a BLP."Pottinger's cats (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2013 (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.