Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Kirtzman

Andrew Kirtzman

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

This biographical article is largely written by the subject. Although he disclaims that, it is clear that most of the words in the article are his work. That violated WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:Promotion and other policies. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uhmm. Notability is less than border-line here. The reference appear to depend on self published books (and having books published does not make one WP notable unless the books are notable anyway) and other references are to advertorials. So, as Spock might have said “He might be notable Jim but not as we know it.” So Delete. --Aspro (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rather, Blow it up and start again. Subject may just fall on the right side of notable (primarily for his ownership of property in Fire Island Pines, rather than for his journalism, see [1], [2]) but this article needs a hefty rewrite from someone who isn't the subject himself. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – To paraphrase Aspro ; “….Uhmm… He might be notable… but not as we know it.”. My thought process has always been to follow our policy of Notability where it states notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such. Persons who are notable due to public responsibility, accomplishments, or, even, mere participation in the celebrity industry are said to have a public profile. We may not agree in the way an article is written or even the tone of the piece, but that does not take away the notability of the subject. It just means the piece needs to be edited, and to be honest, it impossible to edit a deleted article. Andrew Kirtzman has garnered more than enough coverage in the New York Times, CBS, New York Daily News, Newsday and numerous other, both printed and televised, sources to justify his inclusion. A need to rewrite is not a reason for deletion. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So OK, he has got his 15 minutes of fame in a very few publications but is that 'encyclopaedia' notable? Has Jim has noticed, we have a Klingon on the starboard bow and questions if we should wipe it off. written with apologies to Roddenberry Also note: Kirtzman Strategies is a self professed public affairs communications firm. So, if they make such a ham-fisted effort of creating a simple WP article – are they really as competent at what they claim when it comes to communications - if they can't even create a proper article about themselves? Scrub it and don't let them leave it to unpaid WP editors to improve their promotional article for them when they profess to be the experts at communications and pay themselves very well for it ! --Aspro (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]