Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Issacharoff

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 delete as a copyright violation of http://www.israelemb.org/bios/Jeremy_Issacharoff.html. (No consensus about the notability issue). Sandstein 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Issacharoff

This is a poorly referenced biography, and it may violate the autobiography guideline based on evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Issacharoff. I have not actually read the article in full, but given the valid COI concerns it needs to be determined whether Wikipedia should have this article. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - this person is NN and therefore not verifiable from RS. -- Y not be working? 20:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logic seems a backwards, but I would never question the logic of a great jurist as yourself. :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ehhhhh... not logic - constatation of fact -- Y not? 02:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, let me look up "constatation". Knew I shoulda been prepared with a dictionary. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - NN, article reads like resume and does mention anything notable. --Shuki (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are non-trivial sources in the article and more can be easily googled up. However i don't see much encyclopedic notability. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom does not meet WP:BIO criteria at the current time. JBsupreme (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he sounds like a pretty important diplomat to me, and I don't see any reason to delete the article. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a decent amount of media coverage of him. GoogleNews returns 40 hits[1]. Enough here to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep is a high-level diplomat who meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:05, 14 July 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.