Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel (3rd nomination)

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. Either a separate article or no article. Redirects simply aren't a good solution here and since the consensus is against a separate article, this is a delete. Tone 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin M. Emanuel

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

This 'article' needs a little explanation. Benjamin M. Emanuel is a Jerusalem-born paediatrician, now living in Chicago, who is the father of three notable people: Rahm Emanuel, Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Ari Emanuel. However, it has previously twice been determined at AFD that he himself is not notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel (2nd nomination). This presents us with a problem.

In December 2008, this article was recreated as a redirect to Rahm Emanuel; however, User:Zach425 pointed out that a redirect is not appropriate here, as there are three equally plausible targets. He turned it into the current pseudo-disambiguation page, listing Benjamin Emanuel's three sons. This, to me, seems even less desirable than a redirect; there's really no precedent for it.

So, what should be done with the article? A redirect doesn't work, as there's no single obvious target; a disambiguation page seems odd and unhelpful. I think the only real options are restoring the article itself (which has been previously deleted several times; Benjamin M. Emanuel is still not notable) and deleting it outright. I think we have to choose the latter. If anyone has a good suggestion, though, I'd like to hear it. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks, the principles underlying BLP compel deletion. We shouldn't have a page in the name of a private person, even though he has famous sons, in whose articles he is mentioned. -- Y not? 23:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I figured the pseudo-disambiguation would be preferable to the re-direct, but being a relatively newbie editor, I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable would take up the cause - thanks, Robofish. If deleted, is there an effective way that we can protect the page from re-creation? The protect previously issued by Jayjg seems not to have worked. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 00:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And certainly leave option open to recreate. He's still making news for his own comments. Even "Benjamin M. Emanuel" gets 400 plus google hits. "Benjamin Emanuel" surely gets lots more. If his article hadn't been deleted, I'm sure there's be lots of research and more to add to it. Details about his activities in Irgun may yet surface and he may be a bigger fish than he admits. Also, he may say more notable things like his slur against Arabs and his defense of Netanyahu - not to mention defending Rahm Emanuel and friends as not being self-hating Jews or Fifth Columnists. I mean he's a fun outspoken guy. Why silence him? CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I assume we will not either of the last two admins who decided this issue decide it? Also, frankly both Admins who did so last two times had well known POVs, so I hope that a truly NPOV admin will decide this issue. How can we ensure that? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See WP:GHITS, where the application cannot be more apt than in this case. The ghits are all by-the-way mentions of him as background in profiles of one his children. The classic WP:NOTINHERETED. The complication of a unprecedented (and weird) soft redirect/disambiguation page further calls for its deletion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and recreate the version hastily deleted last time when there was a majority supporting keep, and an involved administrator deleted prior to the usual discussion time. To quote a prior keep !vote "Even before Rahm Emanuel’s recent political ascent, Benjamin Emanuel’s life story has been deemed important enough to be profiled by many news sources, including the NYT and Fortune Magazine. But now with Rahm Emanuel’s new prominence, Benjamin Emanuel’s participation in the Irgun and his recent quote about his son’s putative support for Israel are fueling many recent news articles. (Just one example: [1]) International perceptions about the Emanuel family have policy implications for the new Obama administration. A properly-sourced, authoritative wiki biography is important to clarify the facts of Dr. Emanuel’s life and to quash the false rumors that are circulating." TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide evidence for the claim that his life story was "profiled by many news sources, including the NYT and Fortune Magazine" independent of his sons' positions, it may add weight to arguments for restoring the original article. Unfortunately, neither of the previous deletion discussions nor the original article provided any such evidence. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 21:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His story is really at the heart of this NYT piece [2]. There is also significant attention in fortune mag [3]. The claim of "private citizen" really doesn't hold after the number of times he has been quoted by papers, and after the interview he gave the press [4]. Further coverage [5] [6]. The Sunday Herald focused in on Benjamin [7] TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 22:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the original article did suffer from poor and questionable sourcing, and some of it should not be resurrected, these new WP:RS sources show that Benjamin himself is considered an important and notable figure for his own comments and his defacto attempts to impose himself into the Israel-Palestine and Obama administration discussion. He obviously says things that annoy people with a variety of POVs, but that's no reason to delete his article. And don't forget that Wikipedia has been criticized repeatedly for deleting his article. Search Wikipedia deleted Benjamin Emanuel article and you'll find dozens of hits. Let's take wikipedia off the bloggers S%*# list :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he's notable enough on his own, then someone should probably write and support an article on him, including these references. In that case, my vote would be keep. If we're just talking about the redirect page, though, I'd say delete, since it just seems to be causing confusion and does nothing to help establish notability on its own. — λ (talk | contribs) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given everyone is busy, people might be reluctant to create. Especially since original article which has some usable content is not available, and some might be reluctant to start from scratch. However, lots of people would work on that, I'm sure, given past discussions, so I think one would quickly arise. I'd make sure all the WP:RS i've collected over last 11 months got used :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has notable spawn, but isn't notable enough himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—does not satisfy simply WP:N guidelines. Most of the articles written mentioning him are actually about one of his offsprings. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (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.