Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel L. Doctoroff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. John254 03:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Daniel L. Doctoroff
Article is a barely modified version of a New York City Press Release that is non-encyclopedic. Given the overwhelming bias, I believe that this article is not salvageable. JDCMAN (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Doctoroff is definitely notable and this article could be trimmed of any NPOV with a quick edit. I don't see an attempt by the nominator to cut the trimmings before bringing this to AfD. Darkspots (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't attempt to edit the article because it is from a press release. I'd make an attempt to trim the article, but I'd cut it to shreds. Doctoroff may be a notable figure, and he should have an article, but I can't see this becoming remotely useful. The only information that I can see is fine is his name, his date of birth, his position, when he served, and a little bit of personal life information. The article is full of weasel words and is mainly fluff.--JDCMAN (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Stubbing out a bad article about a notable public figure is totally fine and preferable to this process. It can be built back up; there's a ton of NYT articles about him that meet the standard of WP:RS. Darkspots (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd make an attempt to trim the article, but I'd cut it to shreds. — And you think that deleting the entire article instead is a less drastic course of action? Du courage! Use your edit button and edit. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't attempt to edit the article because it is from a press release. I'd make an attempt to trim the article, but I'd cut it to shreds. Doctoroff may be a notable figure, and he should have an article, but I can't see this becoming remotely useful. The only information that I can see is fine is his name, his date of birth, his position, when he served, and a little bit of personal life information. The article is full of weasel words and is mainly fluff.--JDCMAN (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Darkspots. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and gut; this article needs help but Doctoroff meets our notability standards. Replacing the article (it's not that long) with a neutral three-sentence stub would be a good start. — brighterorange (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Now president of Bloomberg, a very major corporation, and enough for notability. The article needs to be rebalanced--there should be enough NYC news sources. DGG (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, clearly salvageable -- Amazins490 (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
