Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J. Schwartzberg: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:31, 27 July 2008

Andrew J. Schwartzberg

Yes, he was an editor of Mad for five years, but there doesn't seem to be a single reliable source pertaining to him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure he is/was a great guy, but the article tells us nothing about him except where he worked. (I wish WP editors would consider if they have something interesting to say about a topic before starting an article, then a lot of AfD's would be avoided.) -Steve Dufour (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 sentences, being an editor of a magazine does not automatically make you notable. this isn't a mad magazine wiki. User529 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the editor of this magazine for 5 years certainly does make one notable. Never knew that we needed something interesting to say, jsut something encyclopedic, such as the facts of someone's notable career. Indeed, there is a considerable amount of reasonable opposition to including articles about someone just because they have an amount of human interest, if there's nothing encyclopedically significant.People are, of course, welcome to write about what they themselves personally find "interesting." DGG (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that "real" encyclopedias try to make their articles interesting to potential readers. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N A search here doesn't show any reliable sources. There should be more context for this 3 year old stub. Artene50 (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *'''Delete''' 2 sentences, being an editor of a magazine does not automatically make you notable. this isn't a mad magazine [[wiki]]. [[User:User529|User529]] ([[User talk:User529|talk]]) 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' Being the editor of '''this''' magazine for 5 years certainly does make one notable. Never knew that we needed something ''interesting'' to say, jsut something encyclopedic, such as the facts of someone's notable career. Indeed, there is a considerable amount of reasonable opposition to including articles about someone just because they have an amount of human interest, if there's nothing encyclopedically significant.People are, of course, welcome to write about what they themselves ''personally'' find "interesting."    '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
+:I'm sure that "real" encyclopedias try to make their articles interesting to potential readers. :-) [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] ([[User talk:Steve Dufour|talk]]) 03:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:N]] A search [http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=Andrew+J.+Schwartzberg+&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images here] doesn't show any reliable sources. There should be more context for this 3 year old stub. [[User:Artene50|Artene50]] ([[User talk:Artene50|talk]]) 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)