Talk:Robert Bierenbaum/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Keep. I dont think this page should be up for deletion in a couple of days. others has been on this page and only wanted to help improving it .and they havent tought it would be up for deletion. only isotope. and it is in this situations i think their should be a discussion first. Because this case is a notable case. it has even been a tv program about it.and as i sayed i think its wrong to have it this way that people just can put on articles for deletion with out an discussion--Matrix17 15:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the article slightly so it is now clear that Bierenbaum case was a subject of one TV show and one bestseller book. I believe this is sufficient to meet the WP:BIO notability criteria, so I removed the prod template. GregorB 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

yes i thought that to. this article isnt a deletion worthy page so to speak. its obvious that it is notable and a actual case. --Matrix17 15:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability

It is incredible to me that any reasonable person would suggest that Robert Bierenbaum is not notable. I would guess it was just a sloppy mistake by someone who did not do their homework. Although at some point the article, in its infancy, did not specifically provide citations to sources, it did assert that such sources existed. At such an early phase, it is prudent to research and edit the article to make it more acceptable. But to recommend deletion of the article is just blatently irresponsible. A very quick look at the Archive1 and we find the top few items clearly establish notability:

• [www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/index.html Crime Library lists is as a Notorious Murder/ Timeless Classic"]
• Dr. Katherine Ramsland uses it as an example case of murderer psychology.
• The judge in the case, Leslie Crocker Snyder, is desribed as famous for some of the cases heard, among which is the case of the subject of this article
• North Dakota Medical board to censure Surgeon for murder of his wife, where he surgically dismembered body
• Confidentiality issues complicate case

I could go on and on... it would only take me about 20 minutes to create megabytes of links. There is no question whatsover about the article subject's notability. Any suggestion to the contrary is just plain silly. Jerry lavoie 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree... look, there is simply nothing notable about this individual. Google hits are meaningless. He simply does not meet any reasonable reading of WP:BIO. As this is deprodded, I'm nominating it for AfD.--Isotope23 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23 reaction was "google hits are meaningless" well then how do YOU find your info? i mean its not the google site it self who are the source its the pages the search comes to that is the source! i tink you are totally wrong.--Matrix17 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I eagerly await the future AfD mentioned. I can't imagine how embarassing this will be for the nominator. "The sky is green! The earth is flat!" Jerry lavoie 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Embarassing? I don't see a credible assertion of meeting WP:BIO here. When I get around to nominating this, if the AfD closes keep then so be it. That's what we call WP:CONSENSUS and I'm fine with that. Your sarcasm is duly noted and even mildly amusing Jerry.--Isotope23 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And to say that their is no proof the person in the article even exist,what is that? well as i have sayed now,the article wont get deleted.--Matrix17 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What conversation are you having Matrix17 (talk · contribs)? I never said the subject didn't exist; I said he is not notable by any reasonable reading of WP:BIO. That is two entirely different things.--Isotope23 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dont try to escape the real discussion here. what proof and on what grounds do you do this actions?you see their are 3 persons who disagrees with you. i cant prove it but i can only say i think their is something else that is making you do this, and its unprofessional--Matrix17 19:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And your comment ment indirect that you dont think this person exist. because their are no real proof.anyone who reads it can tell.--Matrix17 20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

...and they are all welcome to dispute the afd when I submit it in the next few days. Beyond that, you are welcome to whatever opinions you wish to hold Matrix...though your novel "interpretation" of my comments is completely incorrect.--Isotope23 20:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

oh good personal attack;) thanks alot. yes we leave it to that. and you will be the one losing in the end the page wont get deleted anyway. this is a personal vendetta against the writer nothing more nothing less. Anyone with eyes can see that,and the fact that its not a deletion worthy article and that their are plenty of proof on this persons existance and notability.And as you can see the article has improved even more.if you report this to afd it will be very strange--Matrix17 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you please take this to a personal talk page

The discussion you are now having here seems unrelated to editing this article. Jerry lavoie 20:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

With the context you've added, I see a decent case for notability now. Thanks for improving the article!--Isotope23 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes lavoie you are totally right. i am going to ignore hes comments. its no use in discussiong this at all. the page is staying anyway!good work by the way lavoie!--Matrix17 20:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That was about time isotope.guess it was when someone else got involved.--Matrix17 20:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)