Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Cheskin

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 nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Cheskin

This biography reads like a CV, is full of original or unsourced research and is biased to the point of looking like an advert for the company Cheskin. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 15:36, 27 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, Davewild (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The material is sourced to the book listed as a reference. A biography of someone who died in 1981 is not an advertisement for the company that he founded. This is someone historically important, as will be clear from a search on Google Books and Google News archive. Bias is best resolved through editing, not deletion. --Eastmain (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added his obituary from The New York Times, which is a further argument for notability. --Eastmain (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the article is on a topic which should not be covered, and it doesn't really seem to read like an advertisement for anything. However, the tone of the article has an extremely pro-Cheskin viewpoint - but this is not even inherent in the content itself, being a product of the tone. With a good bit of copy editing, and maybe the addition of some tempering facts, this article can definitely be up to our standards. Starting it from blank would be a poor option with this much text, and judging by most biography articles on generally good people I see, we'd be unlikely to achieve anything better that way in any case. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wrote many books, NYT obit, significant accomplishments in his field.John Z (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present form. Notability is not the issue — in theory an article about Cheskin probably belongs in WP — but in practice, who will write the new version? The neutrality tag (by me) is already eight months old. The only thing that happened in the meantime was a very brief post to the discussion page, presumably by the original anonymous author speaking of his/her original research. IslandGyrl (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably caught up in the backlog. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its poor quality does not detract from the core issue: a major innovator in his field. The article is being edited and additional research going on as of this writing. Cheers, Shir-El too 12:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cheskin is clearly an important forerunner in the importance of branding and presentation of products - so I think the article should be kept until either put in a larger context or expanded. I found several independent sources on the web that referred to him. Terriers14 (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination as article is undergoing a massive edit and this is likely to remove anything deletion-worthy. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 16:11, 5 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.