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 no consensus. Probably needs much work, though.  Sandstein  20:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Rothenberg (activist)[edit]

David Rothenberg (activist) (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)

Has been deleted earlier [1] also unsourced and notability. Fitindia (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Delete per WP:G11 again, same WP:BLP1E and non-notability issues. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the available sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like advertising to me, and it's an unsourced BLP. Weak Keep - There's some real work to be done. However, I think he may be notable enough to pass WP:GNG, as per the following sources:

WSJ piece

Forward piece

Gay City piece

The Villager piece

Some coverage from student publications at UC Denver: [2][3]

Local news article

There's also this, which may be someone else. Either way, I imagine a better version of the article could conceivably be written in the future. GAB^Hello! 19:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've found sufficient Reliable Sources, but you advocate deletion? The sources, if sufficiently reliable, demonstrate that the article should be kept, but cleaned up and properly sourced. Your New Yorker source is about the other DR, the prof/jazz musician, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Well, sorry for the confusing rationale. I originally felt like deleting it and simply starting from scratch was a distinct possibility. Now, the article is sourced at least, but it relies far too much on the subject's own book (it makes up over 75% of all references!). Now, it should be expanded with more sources besides the book. GAB^Hello! 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a duplicated version of this article (accidentally created by the same person who created this version) at David Rothenberg (activist). Given that David Rothenberg (activist) is clearly the most appropriate title for this page, I think the page at the David rothenberg activist title should be redirected to the one with the better title. Everymorning (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Everymorning is correct. I abandoned the original article David rothenberg activist because I couldn't figure out how to change the article title. David Rothenberg (Activist) is the more appropriate name and also is the complete article with sourcing. The previously seen versions were not complete. The article is not advertisement and Rothenberg Passes the notability criteria. He is truly a legend in New York. Please see the external links in my updated article David Rothenberg (Activist). Please remove the deletion tag. I agree the article can stand to be improved and I will strive to work on it going forward. Thank you! Sapiopath (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think instead of deleting David Rothenberg (activist), one should delete the page which redirects to it as it is useless at the moment. The page which redirects to it is David rothenberg activist. Abhinav0908 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The question is as always whether there are (in the world, not necessarily in the article) sufficient Reliable Sources to support an article on this living person; any redirects can be tidied up separately. Currently the article is sourced only to a work by Rothenberg himself, which does not establish notability. However there are independent sources, e.g. Forward, New Jersey, Shelter Island Reporter, a Historical Dictionary of LG Lib. entry, Newark Sun Times, North Jersey, and so on. There is some difficulty with search because David Rothenberg the philosophy prof/jazz musician is also sometimes called an activist (on behalf of nature and the environment). However I think there is enough on this article's DR to demonstrate notability. What is required therefore is to source the article properly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article has been redirected and all links in this AfD page corrected to reflect the new article title David Rothenberg (activist). However, I still believe WP:GNG is rather questionable, as almost all sources cited are a book from the subject. See also article author's very similar article Fortune Society which has also been flagged for potential GNG issues. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, if it exists, is proven from whatever sources exist (in libraries, on the web, in the world), not in whatever has been put in the article so far. We all agree the article is as yet poorly cited: the question is whether it is citeable, and it seems that it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is basically all sourced to the subjects memoir, that is not possible to be a reliable source on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was badly sourced by a novice, which is why it came here. The point is that other sources exist, can be used, and demonstrate notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. sigh This kind of article is a profound embarrassment ot the project. It reads as though it was written by David Rothenberg, in the wake of writing the Memoir on which teh article is largely based. However, apparently because Rothenberg had had a minor career in New York Theatre, and had hung around sundry activist political causes, he was sufficiently well-connected to garner color pieces (not reviews, I think) of his Memoir. We play by the rules here. There are enough sources to write a brief aritcle on him. If anyone wants to return it to user space and ask him to cut it down to reasonable size, I could support that. What I don't see is justification for deleting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 27 May 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.