| Revision as of 02:44, 6 February 2008 editBhaktivinode (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers3,608 edits →Peter Tarlow: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:50, 6 February 2008 edit undoAnmaFinotera (talk | contribs)107,494 edits →Peter Tarlow: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ::::::Try again. It was questioned for notability over a month ago when it was sent for CSD, so you and anyone else interested has had a month since then to address the issues. You did nothing and still have not shown any actual notability outside of TAMU. ] (]) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ::::::Try again. It was questioned for notability over a month ago when it was sent for CSD, so you and anyone else interested has had a month since then to address the issues. You did nothing and still have not shown any actual notability outside of TAMU. ] (]) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::I have no clue what your motives are but you seem to consistantly delete artiticles related to Jews in Texas. This article is notable, I feel other editors will agree. I am sure we will be discussing other deletions in the future. ] (]) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | :::::::I have no clue what your motives are but you seem to consistantly delete artiticles related to Jews in Texas. This article is notable, I feel other editors will agree. I am sure we will be discussing other deletions in the future. ] (]) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::You make the same accusations anytime anyone nominates your articles for deletion, subtly questioning if they have something against Jewish people instead of acknowledging that you frequently make articles that do not properly assert notability. Four articles of yours have already been AfDed, while another resulted in a redirect because it couldn't establish independant notability. I'm not the only editor to notice this or to regularly go behind and play clean up when you do this. Why not actually weigh an article against the notability guidelines before creating them so we wouldn't keep meeting here? ] (]) 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:50, 6 February 2008
Peter Tarlow
Does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Claim to be an "important figure" in security and tourism is not supported by the sources listed and is pure NPOV. The few outside sources listed only confirm his position and that he wrote a single book. Collectonian (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Individual is quite notable, after a quick look at Google Books. See http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22Peter+Tarlow%22&sa=N&tab=np (Mind meal (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
- delete - seems short on notability. is the book important? there are no reviews listed in the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep notable in field of tourism security and as as leader of the nation's oldest Hillel at Texas A&M where individual is a profesor. Bhaktivinode (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The article doesn't demonstrate notability as an academic. The biggest barrier right now for the article is that it does not cite any reliable, third-party sources (The Batt is a newspaper, but since it is a school paper for the school where he is a professor, it can't stand alone in establishing notability, and the other "sources" are websites of places he is affiliated with.). Can you find reliable sources-quickly-that discuss him in detail? Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - should be more explained why he is so important--YY (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep A simple Google search shows numerous sources supporting the article's claims. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, he is notable, as a professor, rabbi and head of Hillel. If he were only a "Hillel rabbi" he would lack notability. But searching the web proves that he is a noted sociologist and expert in a number of significant areas. See this: Peter E. Tarlow is a sociologist specializing in the impact of crime and terrorism on the tourism industry and also in tourism and economic development. This: The Crytpto-Jews and the Inquisition in New Spain: A Symposium at Texas A&M University...Committee Members:...Rabbi Peter Tarlow, Hillel Foundation;... and this: Listed in Texas A&M University Department of Philosophy and many more like this that proves his notability in a number of fields: academic, Jewish and communal. IZAK (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- And yet, no one is adding any of this information to the article? Wouldn't that address the issue far better than just saying "here's stuff"? Collectonian (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then WHY did you nominate the article without even checking if there were other sources, if the article did not meet "your" standards? This nomination is rather BOGUS and far from constructive! Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- You were the one who created the article as a two sentence stub, and despite having its notability questioned previously, did nothing to address the issue. It is not the job of other editors to fix your articles when you make them like this then abandon them. The article makes none of the assertions of notability given here and is entirely sourced by primary and local sources. My quick search only show that he writes a few niche books and is a professor. As I didn't feel any of that meet WP:BIO or Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics), I sent it for AfD.
- Then WHY did you nominate the article without even checking if there were other sources, if the article did not meet "your" standards? This nomination is rather BOGUS and far from constructive! Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- And yet, no one is adding any of this information to the article? Wouldn't that address the issue far better than just saying "here's stuff"? Collectonian (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Only now is more information being given, and even then it is all of the stuff IZAK lists comes from TAMU, his unversity, so it is not an independant, secondary source. Where are outside sources showing that he is "regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field," "has published a significant and well-known academic work,", "has received a notable award or honor", or that he is "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject?" It was not a first resort, the article was previously CSDed. Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- And yet you used Afd as a first resort? Far from civil! Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Only now is more information being given, and even then it is all of the stuff IZAK lists comes from TAMU, his unversity, so it is not an independant, secondary source. Where are outside sources showing that he is "regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field," "has published a significant and well-known academic work,", "has received a notable award or honor", or that he is "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject?" It was not a first resort, the article was previously CSDed. Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try again. It was questioned for notability over a month ago when it was sent for CSD, so you and anyone else interested has had a month since then to address the issues. You did nothing and still have not shown any actual notability outside of TAMU. Collectonian (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no clue what your motives are but you seem to consistantly delete artiticles related to Jews in Texas. This article is notable, I feel other editors will agree. I am sure we will be discussing other deletions in the future. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- You make the same accusations anytime anyone nominates your articles for deletion, subtly questioning if they have something against Jewish people instead of acknowledging that you frequently make articles that do not properly assert notability. Four articles of yours have already been AfDed, while another resulted in a redirect because it couldn't establish independant notability. I'm not the only editor to notice this or to regularly go behind and play clean up when you do this. Why not actually weigh an article against the notability guidelines before creating them so we wouldn't keep meeting here? Collectonian (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have no clue what your motives are but you seem to consistantly delete artiticles related to Jews in Texas. This article is notable, I feel other editors will agree. I am sure we will be discussing other deletions in the future. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Try again. It was questioned for notability over a month ago when it was sent for CSD, so you and anyone else interested has had a month since then to address the issues. You did nothing and still have not shown any actual notability outside of TAMU. Collectonian (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)