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. Notability was established. Deleting articles simply because of a COI issue finds no support either in policy or amongst the !votes here (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sirota[edit]

David Sirota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Content of page is largely original research and self-aggrandizing; does not meet notability standards. Meese (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article does have a promotional feel to it, but there is independent coverage of the subject at pbs.org, and in an interview at Salon magazine, and an article in Rocky Mountain News. Looks like there's plenty more, glancing over the hits at Google News archives. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that for the article to be kept it not only needs significant citation of outside material, but also needs to be brought in line with NPOV rules. I get a sense of a "promotional feel" when reading it as well, and from searching I see there is plenty of material that isn't quite so pro-Sirota. Meese (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time you tagged the article with ((onesource)) and ((citations missing)), it had 8 inline references from 5 different sources. I have converted the inline references to citations and removed both tags. There is no requirement that an article be fully cited and utterly NPOV in order to be kept at AFD; if there were, we would have zero articles. Maralia (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. A moron, but notably so. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs a lot of work, but the guy passes WP:N, WP:BIO and such.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, article needs referencing and other work, but he meets notability. Maralia (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above; he's clearly notable, although the article needs serious copyediting. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I logged onto wikipedia toady to find information on David Sirota. For that reason alone, I would like to see this article continued. It is necessary, however to maintain objective information about Mr. Sirota, so we need to do something about the edit war that is going on,

--A.backman (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2009 (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.