Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandel Brothers

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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:13, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandel Brothers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1. Please see extant conversation on Talk when this was accidentally mis-labeled for deletion under PROD.
2. Original claim: This article is almost entirely unsourced. It is written like a grade school paper with grade-school sentences filled with non-encyclopedic information. Notability is not properly established. The overall feel is that it is a vanity piece to have this article on here, if not outright NPOV or COI.
3. Apparently Morton Mandel has an article, but there would be no way to know that from this. The author didn't even take the time to add a link in either direction. The one paragraph here is scant in comparison to that article and adds nothing not already there about the one notable Mandel.
4. For what it's worth this article's creator, EthanDobres, has used the following socks: Ethanjesse, Ohiostatefan100, 65.189.198.128, and 65.127.85.11 to disrupt the deletion proceedings when the article was listed under PROD by merely blanking the deletion discussion.
5. When I first realized these two Ethans might be the same, I did a few simple Google searches on their shared history and don't want to spell it out because the banned user is a minor, but he also has an unambiguous relation to the subjects of the article, which confirms my initial first-read of this piece: that it is merely a vanity fluff piece with COI throughout and adds nothing to the encyclopedia given there is an actual and proper article on Morton. The fact that the author was seemingly unaware of this fact, actually goes to establish that the intent was not to contribute to the encyclopedia but merely to have one's own writing on the topic be published. JesseRafe (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Singh (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the brothers are notable, each should have its own page. If they are not notable, then having them on a single page doesn't change that. LaMona (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 04:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2015 (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.