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 delete. Either a separate article or no article. Redirects simply aren't a good solution here and since the consensus is against a separate article, this is a delete. Tone 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin M. Emanuel[edit]

Benjamin M. Emanuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 'article' needs a little explanation. Benjamin M. Emanuel is a Jerusalem-born paediatrician, now living in Chicago, who is the father of three notable people: Rahm Emanuel, Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Ari Emanuel. However, it has previously twice been determined at AFD that he himself is not notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel (2nd nomination). This presents us with a problem.

In December 2008, this article was recreated as a redirect to Rahm Emanuel; however, User:Zach425 pointed out that a redirect is not appropriate here, as there are three equally plausible targets. He turned it into the current pseudo-disambiguation page, listing Benjamin Emanuel's three sons. This, to me, seems even less desirable than a redirect; there's really no precedent for it.

So, what should be done with the article? A redirect doesn't work, as there's no single obvious target; a disambiguation page seems odd and unhelpful. I think the only real options are restoring the article itself (which has been previously deleted several times; Benjamin M. Emanuel is still not notable) and deleting it outright. I think we have to choose the latter. If anyone has a good suggestion, though, I'd like to hear it. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide evidence for the claim that his life story was "profiled by many news sources, including the NYT and Fortune Magazine" independent of his sons' positions, it may add weight to arguments for restoring the original article. Unfortunately, neither of the previous deletion discussions nor the original article provided any such evidence. --Zach425 talk/contribs 21:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His story is really at the heart of this NYT piece [2]. There is also significant attention in fortune mag [3]. The claim of "private citizen" really doesn't hold after the number of times he has been quoted by papers, and after the interview he gave the press [4]. Further coverage [5] [6]. The Sunday Herald focused in on Benjamin [7] TharsHammar Bits andPieces 22:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the original article did suffer from poor and questionable sourcing, and some of it should not be resurrected, these new WP:RS sources show that Benjamin himself is considered an important and notable figure for his own comments and his defacto attempts to impose himself into the Israel-Palestine and Obama administration discussion. He obviously says things that annoy people with a variety of POVs, but that's no reason to delete his article. And don't forget that Wikipedia has been criticized repeatedly for deleting his article. Search Wikipedia deleted Benjamin Emanuel article and you'll find dozens of hits. Let's take wikipedia off the bloggers S%*# list :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he's notable enough on his own, then someone should probably write and support an article on him, including these references. In that case, my vote would be keep. If we're just talking about the redirect page, though, I'd say delete, since it just seems to be causing confusion and does nothing to help establish notability on its own. — λ (talk | contribs) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given everyone is busy, people might be reluctant to create. Especially since original article which has some usable content is not available, and some might be reluctant to start from scratch. However, lots of people would work on that, I'm sure, given past discussions, so I think one would quickly arise. I'd make sure all the WP:RS i've collected over last 11 months got used :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2009 (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.