Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Zizmor (2)

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. – Avi 07:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Zizmor

Jonathan Zizmor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2nd nom. I believe first AfD was wrongly decided.

Zizmor is a NN dermatologist. Advertises a lot on the subway, so is well known due to weird name and ads plastered in every other train car, but otherwise completely fails the multiple non-trivial published works test. He's just a doctor in Manhattan. - crz crztalk 06:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - no sources cited in article, very little notariaty outside of being 'that guy on the subway signs' in NYC. Very few g-hits that are relevant. Article doesn't read like WP:SPAM or WP:VAIN but I don't think there's any point to him having an article. -- wtfunkymonkey 06:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well, The New Yorker found him notable enough to write an article about him [1], so did Pulitzer Prize winner Dan Barry at the New York Times [2] (free preview). Another article about him here [3]. All of this plus his face is staring at every New Yorker who rides the subway (probably makes Angelyne jealous). --Oakshade 06:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • As I basically said above, all this coverage is cute, but trivial. - crz crztalk 06:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Although I would argue the subject easily passes WP:BIO and the published works are not trivial, your opinion of the subject being trivial might not be contended, actually, and alot of people might find something like this interesting. Even "trivial" subjects have a home in WP (Angelyne cited above is an excellent example). I think write-ups by two of the most prestigious publications in the US is quite a good case for verification on its interest value. --Oakshade 07:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)... (additional comment), In WP:BIO, "trivial coverage" refers to "newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths." Under WP:BIO's definition, the articles cited are decisively non-trivial. --Oakshade 15:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough for the city's two most important publications (sorry Wall Street Journal) to feature. Caknuck 06:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see how he meets the criteria in WP:BIO. Just because he is a nice bit of trivia for native New Yorkers doesn't mean that he is notable. What has he done to make himself remembered in the field of dermatology other than spending a lot on advertising? Movementarian (Talk) 11:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep. He's indeed not notable in the field of dermatology. He is however, apparently, responsible for a particularly famous advertising campaign, so the article should be (and indeed is) written mainly around that. Morwen - Talk 12:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. How does that satisfy WP:BIO?
  • Strong Keep. Zizmor is famous. It's for something tacky--relentless self-promotion--but I think the argument is being made here that "tacky" equals "trivial to the point of irrelevance". It's very clear the "non-trivial" part of WP:BIO refers to the depth of content written in articles about the subject, not any editor's opinion about the importance of subject, and that's being ignored here. The New Yorker piece shows his cultural notability--as soon as I saw this AfD I remembered that piece. If you search nytimes.com for "Zizmor" you get 23 hits, 20 of which are about him. In an NYT article about Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, which you can read on their website, the fact that Zizmor's on the board of the school is worthy of mentioning, and not just in a list. There are several other NYT articles that are features about him. Darkspots 15:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: I wouldn't go to him, but he's been a pretty common household name (if at least for comedic value) for awhile now. Press coverage meets WP:BIO. --Howrealisreal 16:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Article asserts notability, this notability is backed up, has significant references in reliable print media. Proto::type 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable except for TV ads in one city. Edison 18:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The central premise of Zizmor's career is that he advertises in the subway, not on television. Maybe he runs TV ads, I don't know--the article and other contributors don't mention television. Here are Edison's contributions. Darkspots 18:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • quick comment "... in one city."? Do you mean 8 million-plus populated New York City? --Oakshade 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Maybe Edison was referring to the New York metropolitan area instead, with a population of 18,747,320--only a couple million fewer than Australia? Darkspots 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. He could be referring to the 18 million in the New York metro area, but i think he was commenting that there are still 282 million that probably haven't heard of him. He spent loads of money on advertising. Does that mean we are now going to say that every guy that has funny car dealership commercials gets to have an article? Movementarian (Talk) 08:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I wonder how many funny used-car dealers have New Yorker articles written about them, have New York Times features written about them? I feel like there are three camps of people arguing this AfD. One group says, he meets the requirements of WP:BIO, it is impossible to deny the cultural relevance of America's newspaper of record and, arguably, most award-winning magazine, so the rules are the rules and he passes. Another group says, weak or very weak keep. The article passes, but.... And the last group wants to delete the article, so they ignore the notability rules, or interpret them with a usage of the word "trivial" that ignores WP:NOTABILITY's very clearly stated definition of the word (Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail.) I think that there is an inherent bias in most serious Wikipedians--we don't like self-promotion. If you hang around here, and work on deletion work in particular, you see a slew of folks that want to use WP to promote themselves or their product in an inappropriate fashion. This guy isn't one of those people. He paid cash for his self-promotion, both in money and, more importantly, in dignity. He's a huckster, a snake-oil salesman, a medical doctor who flogs a vastly over-hyped product (fruit-acid peels) to the gullible segment of the middle class, with an affordable payment plan. He's an American archetype, an embarrassment, a medicine show of the late twentieth century. He's been advertising on the train since the 70s, before HMOs got big, when doctors still were looked up to, still got respect just for being doctors. He's an embarrassment to some people in the medical community, an embarrassment to some Jewish people, a creepy airbrushed face grinning down at you with the smugness of the flip side of the American Dream. And he's done it all in New York City, the advertising capital of North America, and is the most notable face of the cheapening of respect for medical doctors in this city. I've got no sources to back me up, but this guy is one of the people who were in the right place at the right time to set the example to the people who design the medical advertising for the entire country, to push its tone in a more commercial direction. No, you don't necessarily know who Jonathan Zizmor is, but you've seen advertising for medical doctors that has been influenced by the man. And that's why he gets the coverage in national cultural publications that he most undeniably has received, and also why you don't like him very much. Darkspots 20:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Insipidly weak keep I stick to my vote in the first AfD, the arguments have not materially changed. IMO, he barely scrapes WP:BIO. Ohconfucius 08:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I remember seeing his ads last time I was in NY. Thought they were creepy... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 11:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete I agree with nom. Eusebeus 16:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per the commenters above, arguments have not materially changed from the first nomination. Yamaguchi先生 03:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Self-publicity is not per se notable. WMMartin 16:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability suffices, even if achieved through self-promotion and even if limited to one large city. In response to comment by Movementarian: I've never understood the attitude that sees AfD questions as whether someone "gets" to have an article. We're not the Nobel Prize Committee. The issue to my mind is whether the article improves the information value of Wikipedia. This one does. JamesMLane t c 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep numerous non trivial mentions in the media per links above... that passes the WP:BIO requirements.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 09:12, 27 November 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.