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. Or at least no consensus to delete. As Mr. Safar's notability appears not to be in question, the only argument advanced for deletion is that the article is poorly written, promotional and authored by Mr. Safar himself, who has not made his WP:COI transparent. However, the preponderance of opinion is that these deficiencies can be remedied through editing rather than deletion.  Sandstein  05:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diwon[edit]

Diwon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook puff piece about a marginally notable musician written by the selfsame musician. Diwon recently gave an interview to the Daily News about his Wikipedia-editing business, mywikipro.com, that charges people $300 to start their Wikipedia articles. User:Bernie44, the same account that started this article and the article for Diwon's record label, Shemspeed also started the majority of the articles for clients of mywikipro.com.

This article violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMOTION and would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic. Some of the references used here are highly problematic. This statement - The Village Voice has stated that “as producer and DJ [Safar] is among the most adventurous and banging on the new Jewish music scene.” was sourced to Elena Oumano's piece in the Village Voice "Get Down Moses," but that article doesn't mention Safar at all or have that quote. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 00:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It looks like he threw every single press mention he's ever had into the ref list. Pure puff. Grayfell (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it seems there are enough good references left to make him notable. The Jerusalem Post gave him a full article devoted entirely to him. I consider the Forward 40 an authoritative list that proves notability--it's a national, not a local list, they are the major US Jewish news publication, and in fact I have long meant to write articles systematically on everyone they include. It's a shame it needed a paid editor. As for errors in the article, we fix them. As paid editors go--and as I have just commented on his page--his work is relatively quite free from promotionalism, though quite unskilled in terms of skill in writing. But we're not judging him, but the performer DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. This might fall under WP:TNT, and the puffery herein kind of makes me lean toward that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at his notability, it's quite obvious. Sources entirely about him or significantly about him include this, this, this, and a number of others, as shown in the article. These are definitely not "puff pieces", but coverage of a leader in the Jewish music scene. Silverseren^C 07:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The source you quote above as 'problematic' states "Kippah-wearing producer dj handler spins in Lower East Side clubs by night and, by day, produces Jewish-infused hip-hop, electronica, and jazz for his Modular Moods label." Sounds like the quote should be attributed to a different article, but I don't see why it can't simply be removed. I tried to locate an article that actually showed the quote that is on the page, but I couldn't find it, used Wayback and lots of search term variations in Google. You didn't explain what other sources you find problematic, but if that is the only one, I say drop that citation and leave the ones that can be verified. -- Avanu (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I didn't address most of your other comments because they weren't concrete enough to address. You say "textbook puff piece" and mention how he used some website "mywikipro.com" but these two statements are merely bias and not specific claims. I looked over the article and although it makes claims, it generally backs those up using what appear to be reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. If you could be more specific about some things in the article that particularly violate NPOV, I could reconsider. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative Keep the motivation for the nomination is almost entirely vindictive. Yet punishment isn't grounds for deletion. If we're to delete this article, we need to consider the article's merits and not its origins. "Puff" can be fixed. "Marginally notable" should be debated on a source by source basis. So, if the nominator would like to change my mind, then I invite him or her to address each reference or otherwise back up the "not notable" claim. Rklawton (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Also, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to maintain a stand alone article per WP:GNG. Once you have that, errors in the article, other problems, etc. can be fixed. Comment: User:Gobonobo's initial AFD request is a valid request and the reasons given in the nomination for deletion are clear enough to develop this discussion. Two people can disagree on what it takes to meet WP:GNG without one having bad motives and should not have to endure public accusuations from others about having bad motives. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith:

  Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.

  -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the author of the Diwon entry, I’d like to address a few of the concerns expressed here. First, as other users have pointed out, the entry clearly shows the notability of the subject, referencing several mainstream news sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Jerusalem Post, etc). Per Gobonobo, I checked the Village Voice quote in question, and the reference is indeed incorrect. The quote has since been removed by another user, which is appropriate; I’ll put it back up should I find the correct reference. However, Gobonobo’s statement that the article “would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic” is excessive. I’ve made an attempt to clean up the entry in order to make it as neutral as possible.

In regards to the flagging of this entry, and others I’ve written, claiming I may have violated Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” principle, I should remind Gobonobo and others that, as it states on the Conflict of interest page, it is “not actually required” to declare any potential conflicts of interest. As per the guidelines on that page, I have attempted to “carefully [follow] Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy” to “help counteract [perceived] biased editing.” I have not written or edited any entry in which “advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia.” I appreciate any good faith attempts to improve the quality of my contributions. As for the accusations of “puffery,” any user finding relevant and properly referenced criticism of Diwon/Safar can obviously add that to the entry.

In keeping with Notability in Wikipedia, Diwon “has ‘gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time’ as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic,” and is therefore worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. --Bernie44 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's a vanity autobiography. If he is genuinely notable then let someone else start an article. The intersect of important subjects and people where nobody creates an article until the subject themself does it, is the null set. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As much as I dislike paid editing, paid editors, and autobiographies, an article should be judged on its merits. This subject seems notable. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2012 (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.