- 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 23:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- David Mancovitz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Withdrawn Nonnotable attorney and criminal. His criminal case was news, of course, but there is no lasting impact on American civilization.
Staszek Lem (
talk) 23:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Meets Wikipedia:POLITICIAN as a member of a state legislature ( Massachusetts House of Representatives). -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 23:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 01:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: There are tens of thousands of biographical articles on people for whom the measurable impact on American civilization can't be proven, but I'm curious as to why the nom thinks that has anything to do with Wikipedia's notability standards. Quite aside from a prima facie pass on WP:POLITICIAN, the subject plainly passes the GNG. I've got 26 hits on newspapers.com [1] in a span between 1903 and 1922, both well before and well after the criminal case, which certainly gets past ONEEVENT. Ravenswing 05:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't notice the short phrase that he was member of legislature (so much for his notability as politician :-), but since this alone qualifies him, fine with me. Newspaper hit count alone is a dubious argument, but it is a non-issue here now. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: We're not talking about Google News, we're talking newspapers.com, one of the pay sites that has an agreement with Wikipedia to supply editors with free accounts to facilitate article building. Those 26 hits equal 26 ARTICLES mentioning Mancovitz. (And that being said, I'd have thought that you'd want to avoid the subject of dubious arguments in this AfD.)
Ravenswing 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, "mentioning" is the key word. I suggest you to find and review a guideline which uses the language "significant coverage" or something like that. But again, the issue is moot now. Otherwise I sure hell would go and dig through these 26. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: We're not talking about Google News, we're talking newspapers.com, one of the pay sites that has an agreement with Wikipedia to supply editors with free accounts to facilitate article building. Those 26 hits equal 26 ARTICLES mentioning Mancovitz. (And that being said, I'd have thought that you'd want to avoid the subject of dubious arguments in this AfD.)
Ravenswing 21:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Snow keep per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.