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. I'm calling this one now. Only one dissent, and it turns out the user was socking and has been indefinitely blocked. Clear consensus that the subject does not meet our notability standards, and he requested deletion on his Twitter account as noted below. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mendelsohn[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Fails WP:GNG- no 'significant coverage' and such coverage as it has is solely WP:PRIMARY, and neither third-party nor independent. Specifically fails WP:JOURNALIST, as subject is neither widely cited or a creator. Non-notable individual. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Also appears to be a bit of a magnet for people with a grudge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this now-stubbed attack piece. E Eng 13:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to have been created as an attack page. The very first revision was by Tom Mendelsohn who contested the charge in the article, but was promptly reverted by the author. WP:CSD#G10 may be in order here. Bradv 13:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He contested sourced facts that he is proud to admit to his friends. Lord help us if we let every person do that '''tAD''' (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea that using sources that reflect that a journalist admitted to publishing race-bait troll pieces on a major British newspaper's website is "rumour" or "attack" is ridiculous. Funny how after the world gasped as a privileged white male had his sentence watered down, we now rush to protect another privileged, elite-schooled white boy from having publicly known facts (that he admitted himself! [1]) made public. Are articles on other similar people like Rod Liddle, Richard Littlejohn, Katie Hopkins and Milo Yiannopoulos "attack pages" for documenting their controversies? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It only has primary sources as the third-party one was deleted for documenting things that the subject regrets '''tAD''' (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (after (edit conflict)) Created as an unbalanced attack page, when stripped back there is no significant coverage in RS to justify a claim of notability. Subject has requested deletion at BLP/N and with such sparse coverage, this request should be respected. Also note that the article subject has edited it twice as an IP and then once as a registered editor and been threatened with a block for edit warring, so we have a BITE situation too, sadly. EdChem (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The only "attack" was to misconstrue him as the writer of that troll piece when he was just the self-confessed publisher who showed no contrition. And now this all gets treated as if he had absolutely nothing to do with it and I was accusing him of a part in the Kennedy assassination. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete noting a singular lack of notability, lack of wide coverage of the claim which one editor has edit-warred for, lack of compliance with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. Salt heavily. Collect (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The so-called edit war was removing COI edits and correcting "writer" to "publisher", which in any case is even more involvement. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My friends at the synagogue told me to protect the reputation of one of the chosen people. How dare a man have to live with the consequences of his actions! Yours, David Asher Solomonbergowitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 is a

Confirmed sock of The Almightey Drill.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about User:Edjeff? E Eng 06:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect EdJeff is the subject of the photo that was uploaded (going by the comments from the source). Given they both work/ed in the journalism sector, I think there is some off-wiki beef going on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sock puppet of whoever that is I'm just a fucking idiot.

Delete as an attack page. Marginal indications of notability selected principally to portray the article subject in a bad light. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only was the article created as an attack page, but it was a crude and unsophisticated attack. This journalist is simply not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 31 July 2016 (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.