Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Cohn-Sherbok

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cohn-Sherbok

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nominating on behalf of 67.168.18.133 who made a request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD Request: Dan Cohn-Sherbok. I have no opinion on this topic.4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Judaism. 4meter4 (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, this seems like a pretty obvious case of WP:NPOSSIBLE and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has a lot of problems, most notably a lack of citations, and inline citation criteria for BLP are not remotely met, but given the number of sources available from a simple google search, the subject seems to meet notability guidelines exceptionally easily for a AFD nomination. Without any rationale for deletion at all, there is no way I could support a deletion here, and this may well be a speedy keep based on rationale 1 of the guideline. The subject is a controversial figure, and I think there is every possibility that this was the reason for the nomination. Whether that is the case or not, I can't possibly see how this does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Perhaps the IP could specify?Cornerstone1949 (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cornerstone1949: The IP claims there has been COI editing by the subject of the article, and made a WP:NOTPROMO argument. They also claim there are WP:POV issues. I cannot confirm or deny that assessment.4meter4 (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, it helps a lot in understanding why this page was nominated. Looking at the history, there is likely COI editing, but of course that doesn't change the individual's notability. To me this is looking like misunderstanding of the grounds for deletion on the part of the IP since the article has issues, but that is not grounds for deletion. The IP (or anyone else) is welcome to improve on these issues, and if the subject is inappropriately editing the article, we have ways to remedy that. For what it's worth, a lot of the editing by the subject is pretty benign, and I can appreciate that he very clearly discloses his identity in his username. Of course this doesn't follow policy, but I think the IP really went straight to the nuclear option here. I will leave a message on the subject's talk page, but I think no further action is really necessary. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

speedy Keep widely cited author and academic, meets GNG, NAUTHOR, and NACADEMIC. Andre🚐 23:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, Wales, Colorado, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has replied on his talk page, I think any issues with COI editing should now be resolved.Cornerstone1949 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable with fairly minor COI issues, see the talk page (the subject only made minor updates to the article according to discussion there). Lovelyfurball (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2025 (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.