Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel A. Burns

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 of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel A. Burns

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Non-notable student, who does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO guidelines. Googling his name as given in the title brings up a grand total of 1 hit. Delete as vanity (note the similarity in the Geocities URL given and the username of the creator.) Prod contested without explanation. Kimchi.sg 07:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Article is incomplete should allow for finished details on latest and quiet noticeable contribution—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam15obong (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: We wrap up most AfDs in not less than 5 days, which should be more than enough time for you to expand your article, and write exactly what makes you so special. Kimchi.sg 07:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Weak delete no notability claimed. --Eivindt@c 07:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: First edits are complete to be followed by more with specifics from his contributers. Norman Segal, John Tasini, Sagoni Weevier and Fredick Faikei. Also speech track records.--Adam15obong 08:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed vote to slow weak delete, after reviewing the new additions to the article, thanks. --Eivindt@c 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. DarthVader 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Having a second look at this article, I'm not quite sure whether the subject is notable or not. I no longer have any recommendation. DarthVader 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Dweller 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and don't forget all the pics. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography according to WP:BIO. Doesn't really qualify for the college athletic records - might do if he turned in to a professional sportsman or an Olympian. Otherwise they are one-offs and will be bettered sooner-or-later & then do we give that person an article?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to Wiki's own standards Mr. Burns's notability is almost complete. This figure is noted among A-list communities and Political spectrums in Brooklyn, NY as well as NCAA record books across the US.

The reason I am adding this page is to jump infront of media bad mouthing> There are at least a couple thousand people who have expressed intrest in this African American figure.

I was inclined to create this page by two very prominent photographers and Event planners as he will be heavily involved in very large congregational campaigns.

-This is not a vanity page- I am a web creator> Please reconsider- public demand will persist>


An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

  1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
  2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
  3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.

If an article is "important" according to the above then there's no reason to delete it on the basis of it being:

  1. of insufficient importance, fame or relevance, or
  2. currently small or a stub, or
  3. obscure. (Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper.)

Note: in order to satifiy Wiki notability I have removed his affilation with dozens of Political and Social organization, this is not my will.

--Adam15obong 17:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Looks like a bright, promising kid. Wouldn't surprise me to see him merit an article a few years down the line, but not now. Fan1967 20:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep Google-ing his name does return hits. I have met Sir Burns in action at the Democratic Primary he is a popular man.--Akadam 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have been pressured to defend this article by several of my associates Israel is a local celebrate to his community and very active humanitarian. Unfortunately he does not fight for his reputation or any public recognition. However, due to his last speech it behooves the wiki powers that be to add this upstanding fellow. --N Siegel 23:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (and with the note that, notwithstanding the inelegance of the locution, a profession that a subject has received notability [as is made in the article] isn't dispositive as to notability). The subject's bio is not at all different from those of many who are politically active at a young age (I, for example, have pictures from my halcyon days with Russ Feingold, Tom Barrett, Herb Kohl, and John Norquist), save for the subject's being involved in sundry humanitarian activities (about which one may see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ivermee); even as some may respect the subject's eleemosynary contributions, though, they are nevertheless non-notable. Joe 23:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Based on persents and persitance seems fine to allow said page. AirwalkLogik 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Under WP:IMP clauses does not clash with WP:BIO standards of Nn --The Nation00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Above vote actually posted by 71.247.30.24 (contribs). - Fan1967 01:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've reviewed information on all of the wiki red tape and found the final factor. So long as this article is not Vanity, selling, or promoting and is object, there is nothing to insinuate non notablity. Prestigue within his school and records supporting the case is record enough for contribuation. This is note a run of the mill situational page, this is a young Icon. his speech will be posted within the month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam15obong (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, per nom and (aeropagitica). Fails WP:BIO, and the article is strongly WP:VANITY. It reads like a hagiography. In addition, with the exception of a few links to some college athetic reviews (and to be frank... big deal), the information in the article does not appear to be backed up by reliable sources. I'm essentially saying that the subject should find another way to publicise himself, because this sort of thing doesn't belong here. Get notable, and then let others write an article about you. - Motor (talk)
  • Keep I dont feel that there are enough grounds for removal obviously you guys have not reached into the links and the story. Does lack of fame make a vanity article? Also Para WP:VANITY guide lines the wording in this article is cold comfort to notice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Akadam (talk • contribs)
    • NOTE, Akadam already made a keep vote above - Motor (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Quote of WP:VANITY by Akadam: Does lack of fame make a vanity article? An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.'
The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them.
  • You can't classify yourself as a "scientific classification" because you're not a panda bear.04:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.236.198.74 (talk • contribs) .


  • This is my second post on this page. N Siegel posted on my Talk pages asking me to reconsider my opinion. I've twice re-read the article this morning and my opinion is unchanged. I cannot see why anyone outside of this person's university would have an iota of interest in him. I have a number of questions and comments that I believe are pertinent to the notability question:
    1. why was he invited to speak at a "Humanitarian of the Year" event. Is he, in fact, a humanitarian? If so, spell it out... prove his notability!
    2. what is so "uncanny" about his sporting achievements? If we listed everyone who broke a couple of school and college sports records, Wikipedia would overwhelmed.
    3. what is so notable about getting involved with local politics? Or even national politics? Do you want an article for every intern, every fundraiser, every camp-follower?

Yes, this chap shows signs of developing into a noteworthy human being, if his ego is allowed to remain human-sized. He may even end up here one day.

But currently, I'm amazed that so many people can read the Wikipedia criteria and still argue to "keep"! He's not notable. Yet.

I stay with my original Delete, somewhat bewildered by this debate. Dweller 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: I just got the call from Steve and Adam and yeah, yuo guys dont understand and I didnt expect this much problems... Alot of people love the kid he does alote for nothing... 48,000 and he doesnt have a house... but Fuck-it, just dont be superised if you see his name again... --Akadam 02:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Defending Comment

  • Delete: Well I want you all to know my friends and I have spoken with Israel and he actually begged them to remove the article. That being said I nominate its deletion.

Before I let this issue go let me address those concerns, (I assure you this is in no way a ploy for sympathy, the sheer fact that I have had this much difficulty confirming this young mans reputation is beyond me. He disserves better then this.)

  • 1. Israel is a prolific writer and his written many speeches for some esteemed clinics. He was invited to the event as a speaker because he comes from a broken home, and has a reputation a progressive young black. He’s 20 right now.
  • 2. According to the record he is one of the one of most progressive throwers in his schools years… I don’t know…. Whatever, somebody told me to add it because the kid does this and he does a lot of other activates. Israel is a pretty good guy and I think it deserves mention… whatever..
  • 3Israel is not involved in politics he is a very powerful behinds the scene man in Brooklyn… I’ve asked him the specifics and he said he couldn’t tell me, but he’s everywhere and if you ask everyone knows him. They compare him to a young Karl Rove… I have a picture of him with Cindy Sheehan in Texas…if you’d like it let me know…

I suppose your all right the kid is a young progress black and he will pop up in the future, the purpose was to get this out before his next campaign so maybe he might get some of the reputation he disserves… but you guys run Wikipedia and I’m just a web-designer… I guess we’ll just wait tell he’s not young anymore…. Since that’s what defines importance.--Adam15obong 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - age isn't the defining factor. As has been said umpteen times already, it's notability that is the key. There are plenty of kids much young than Mr Burns with (deserved) Wikipedia articles. One example is this 13 year old. And if Wikipedia had existed in the 1930s, this kid would have got in at 5. And in 1978, this girl would have got in at 1 day old.Dweller 10:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable and fails to meet the requirements for WP:BIO--Auger Martel 11:59, 17 June 2006 (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.