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. Synergy 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Zweig[edit]

Martin Zweig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete not notable per WP:BIO. Seems to be more of a resume. Ave Caesar (talk) 12:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Titanium keep. Deplorable, lazy and disruptive nomination; five seconds of googling shows that this individual is notable beyond all possible doubt. Significant coverage in The Globe & Mail, The Washington Post, The Street.com ("a giant among gurus"), Forbes, The Miami Herald, The New York Times, CNN Money, and The Philadelphia Enquirer – and that's only a selection from the first 30 of 588 Google News results. Skomorokh 12:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Regardless of the notability of the subject matter, Skomorokh's opening comment amounts to a personal attack against the nominator and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. To create such an article using "Martin Zweig Unofficial Web Site" as the sole cited reference is more lazy and disruptive than nominating it for deletion. It is not the responsibility of the reader to Google this guy. It was the responsibility of the author to incorporate the results of that search engine use as references for the article. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, HouseOfScandal. I've gotten to the point now where I don't respond to personal attacks but that was my immediate reaction as well. --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a personal attack, it was a comment on the contribution rather than the contributor. I am not familiar with Ave Caeser's other work, nor am interested in denigrating it; I am happy to imagine they have done great things for the encyclopaedia and are a good faith contributor. Taking a torch to an article other people put time and effort into, without (apparently) bothering to do any research is, however, deplorable, lazy and disruptive. It absolutely is the responsibility of the nominator to research the notability of the topic, even more so when the deprodder has indicated exactly where the information has been found. I stand by my original comment entirely. Skomorokh 10:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As it might contribute to peace and happiness, I should have suggested that Skomorokh articulate those concerns in a more genial manner rather than characterizing Skomorokh's comments as a person attack. Everyone here seems to be acting in good faith and there's no reason for bad blood. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, I choose not to pull punches and expect the same in return. Regards, Skomorokh 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Zweig's notability is very clear in the market, the bookstore, in the newspapers, and on the television.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Skomorokh's perfect demonstration about the notability of the subject. So#Why 12:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not even close, as reflected by Skomorokh's cites. The nominator may want to check the edit history of articles which s/he may nominate in the future. Here, when the nom's prod was removed, the editor noted the large number of pertinent results from Google News. The article itself, while unreferenced, gives clear assertions of notablity, such as "Zweig appeared regularly on PBS television's Wall $treet Week with Louis Rukeyser and in 1992 he was voted into the program's Hall of Fame." Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the references given. The nom had prodded it--it was deprodded with the comment:"(deprod quite notable, 178 gbooks hits, 588 gnews hits, many of them specifically about him)" . Given that, going ahead with an afd does look a little extraordinary. But why didnt the deprodder add some of those refs to the article as well, while he was at it? DGG (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Plenty of people are willing to advocate for the article yet no one seems willing to improve it. Note that I haven't opined that the article should be deleted. I'm opining that the onus of improving it falls to the those who feel this article belongs here. Rather than asking why so-and-so didn't add references, why doesn't someone who opined "Keep" walk the walk and fix the damn thing? BTW, I've adopted plenty of articles and saved them from AfD debates, but I chose not to adopt this one. - House of Scandal (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well-known enough as a television personality to merit an article, and unlike some television personalities actually has significant experience outside the television world. Fg2 (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2008 (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.