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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bedein

[edit]
David Bedein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article merely for self-promotion. The lead contained even spam. Wickey-nl (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would plead for an article about Bedein's propaganda activities, respectively his film, rather than a biographic one --> http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/arutz-sheva-forced-publish-denial-over-%E2%80%9Cgroundless%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9Cpolitically. This would, however, make it a propaganda platform. Actually, Google mainly points to links with links to Bedein's work or interviews with him. Google Books is even a less valid criterion. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not "pleading" sorry, but see CREATIVE #3, review coverage of a person's work counts towards notability of that person. Calling it "propaganda" without a reliable source is a personal bias. Google Books references are a very reliable criteria. -- GreenC 16:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely Arutz Sheva is an extreme propaganda platform. I presume a neutral approach here, but isn't a Google search a very strange approach? Shouldn't you judge based on the content of the article itself??? I would advice you to take a look at the Talk page and at the links to the article as well. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your goal here is Wickey-nl. The subject plainly satisfies the criteria for notability and inclusion on the basis of WP:CREATIVE guidelines alone. You may dislike/dispute the subject's writing and/or the outlets that publish those writings or screen films. However, that is an issue you can take up in an appropriate venue outside of Wiki. Don't get caught in WP:OVERZEALOUS attempts to delete a qualifying entry. --Vitamin77 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that the article is merely used for self-promotion. The reactions here only confirm that it will be kept for political reasons. Don't reverse the facts, I have no problem with a good article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject's satisfaction of inclusion criteria has already been established. I encourage editors to continue improving this entry with more material. Vitamin77 (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if one were to establish "the article is merely used for self-promotion" (ie. COI) that doesn't negate notability. (And COI has not been established.) In terms of PROMOTION, that is a content-level argument, AfD is a topic level discussion i.e. should we have an article on this topic, regardless of the article's content. -- GreenC 20:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another use of an improper link for improper arguing. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:02, 17 December 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.
More