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 no consensus. I find the two sources currently in this article to be fairly weak, a surprising result after an AfD has run its course. It concerns me a bit but consensus seems clearly divided. Pigman☿ 00:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Rosenfeld[edit]

Micky Rosenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete so this guy, on this occasion, was a spokesman for a presumably notable organization. That doesn't make him notable. At least this article has a source, but this guy is so nn, we don't know where or when he was born or anything else that one would expect to read in an encyclopedic biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep the article is a stub as is, of course, but the subject is inherently notable as being the spokesman of a country's police organization. This does not meet any of wikipedia's criteria for deletion Stanley011 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Also, if he is mentioned constantly in the news, (just do a google news searc) he cannot possibly be nn. Stanley011 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Stanley011. Google and g-news pull up a massive number of hits. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak DeleteDelete unless notability is asserted by references cited within the article Article is now properly tagged. Sourcing exists (although it is ASSUREDLY less wide ranging than is suggested above, more likely a number of those are listed because his name appears at the top of a press release). Please help to constructively tag wikipedia articles rather than delete them. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC). Subject requires significant coverage in a verifiable, independent third party source. I'm going to go on a limb and say that press releases from the police force don't count. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NN, and mostly NN generic position. Please point to relevant cats and other identical articles of police spokespeople around the world. Nothing in Category:Public relations people or even Category:Public relations. If the position is NN, then please point out how Rosenfield is. --Shuki (talk) 23:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It should be noted that Stanley011 is the initial author of the article. I also don't see a mention in that source that Rosenfeld is anything more than A police spokesperson. Not say, the chief spokeperson for the organization as a whole. Protonk (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you misread the line. It says that he is Israel's police spokesman. That means "one" as in, he is it Stanley011 (talk) 06:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this line? "'She left the vehicle escorted by the director-general of the Knesset (parliament),' police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. 'She is going into the Knesset to talk in order to solve her problem.'". The source doesn't include an article, definite or indefinite. YOU claim that he is the chief spokesperson. Your source makes no such claim. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, The information is correct, but there's nothing to write about him except his title. Curious coincidence: If you search in Hebrew for "דובר משטרת ישראל" (Israel Police spokesperson), you'll find articles about a completely different guy with a similar name: Mickey Rosenthal. He's not the spokesperson, but a journalist, the Israeli Michael Moore; he's called a "spokesperson" in a few articles, because he presented a program about the police. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see how anyone that pulls up as many google news searches as this man can possibly be deleted from wikipedia. He is the chief spokesman for an entire nation's police force for God's sake! Stanley011 (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some sources showing his notability as a public figure, then why haven't you, the author of the article, added them? there are no sources (Aside from a BBC weblink where he is not the subject) cited in your article. If it remains this way it will be deleted. You haven't even proven that he is the chief spokeperson. All that article says is that he is a spokesperson. Furthermore, police forces are (at least in the US) local and municipal. There is no US chief police spokesperson. We refer to the attorney general as the "top cop" in the press but this only means that he is in charge of federal prosecutors who are actually not cops. I don't know israeli police but I have reason to suspect that their command structure isn't too different from ours. Protonk (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That assumption - that a small non-federal country such as Israel, which has very different policing concerns, would have a similar police commend structure to the USA - shows remarkable insularity. If you look it up in an encyclopedia you will find that the Israel Police is a unified force. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good day to you too. How about this. the SOURCES in the article don't make such a claim. The only person before you making such a claim as the author of the article, who hadn't seen fit to substantiate it. So why don't you back off a second before insulting me over a very tentative assumption made on the base of priors. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the sources in this article say anything about the way that the police in Israel are organised? That's the job of other articles such as the one that I linked. I'm not insulting you by pointing out that the statement, "I have reason to suspect that their command structure isn't too different from ours", is an invalid assumption, and that wording is not at all tentative - you explicitly said the you have "reason" to suspect this. Your insularity is underlined by your use of the word "ours" in that sentence - why do you assume that "we" are all Americans? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because otherwise he is just A police spokesperson. The source YOU added suggests that he is a spokesperson for the israeli police force as a whole. That's fine and dandy. The FIRST source just literally say police spokesperson. read it again. And tell you what. Why don't you just cool off before coming in this thread accusing me of being close minded. I tried to let you off easy for what is basically a personal attack and you kept it up. Third times a charm. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There seems to be a lot of pointless argument here without supporters of either position backing anything up with evidence. This source shows that he is the foreign press spokesman for a national police force, and the sheer number of passing Google News references shows that he is someone who people could well want to look up in an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil, you're contradicting your keep by saying that the authour of the article has not provided evidence. Please see my comment at the bottom w/r to quantity of g-hits. --Shuki (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Who is the spokesperson for the FBI, United States Coast Guard, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Interpol, etc... and do they warrant seperate articles? Well, I found that Bill Carter fronts for the FBI with millions of g-hits (ok, 1.2mill +fbi), but he has no personal article (or even mention in the main article) and for even such an organization I don't know if one is warranted. The exception is the position of White House Press Secretary. On top of that, if Mickey can be identified as being notable himself, like a distinguished service, not a regular joe, that would suffice. --Shuki (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Feel free to create articles for those individuals as well, IF they pull up millions of sources. This article is now well-sourced and it is obvious that the subject is quite notable. This really should not be up for much discussion anymore. Stanley011 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As it stands, I still think the article doesn't pass the threshold for notability. Now we have one article saying he is the new spokesperson for the police force. I don't think that is a sufficient assertion of notability. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Those people should certainly have articles if sources exist and somebody (how about Shuki or Protonk?) is prepared to write them. Just because nobody has got round to writing them yet does mean that this article has to be deleted. And why should the White House Press Secretary be the sole exception? Wikipedia is not USApedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. Why don't you read This on my userspace? One of the first things I put on the page. I'm not making an other stuff exists argument and neither are most of the serious respondents here. Please don't make bald accusations of close-mindedness where none exists. So I didn't know israel had a unified police force. So sue me. the correct response is to explain that misconception (which ought to be common from people who don't live in places with unified police forces), then make some sort of positive claim about notability vis a vis this police force. The second reference in the article attempts that, but doesn't go all the way. I'm willing to come half way on this but the burden of proof for notability is on the part of the author. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The Israeli Police has a unit devoted to public relations. The head of that unit is Cmdr. Raffi Yaffe (ניצב משנה רפי יפה), per the Police web page at [1] (the penultimate line). I'm sorry it's only in Hebrew, couldn't find its English counterpart. Within that unit, there are different positions. One of which is the foreign press spokesperson, Micky Rosenfeld. His rank, Chief Inspector, is a rather low officer rank, the third of nine (see [2]). I don't really think this justifies an article here, but I'm not voting as I'm not familiar enough with the issue of biographic article in the English Wiki (I'm more active on the Hebrew one). okedem (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for the delete - Stanley011, his existance has been verified, not any notability. Quantity of g-hits is not a sign of notability. Bill Carter might be quoted by one source which is then picked up by thousands of other online websites. It does not make him notable, and I would recommend a delete if an article for him was created as well. --Shuki (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your analogy to Bill Carter is highly disingenuous. Micky Rosenfeld has not just been mentioned by one source that is then picked up by "thousands of other online websites". He is frequently mentioned in the news in a variety of contexts and in a variety of sources. That simply is not the case with Bill Carter. Stanley011 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the proof is in the pudding. If you have independent sources that focus on Mickey Rosenfeld then please reference them in the article. Please do not accuse other editors of arguing in bad faith. Rather, you should put that effort into improving the article. That will help convert people from delete to keep. As it stands you have one source mentioning the subject in a changing of the guard. The other source has him mentioned in the course of his role, which is to give statements to the press. If you have some wealth of sources heretofore hidden to us, please don't hide them. Put them in the article. Protonk (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Protonk (talk) 03:19, 30 April 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.