Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 08:25, 24 November 2024

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.

In closing this discussion, I discount the "keep" opinions of Wikifan12345 (so as not to encourage the battleground-style conduct exhibited in the first comment) and Shuki (no policy-based argument). I also discount the "delete" opinions of Grace Note (argumentum ad hominem) and Bali ultimate (overly brief), as well as the "merge" opinion of Dlabtot (just a vote).

This leaves us with a rough headcount of delete 7, delete/redirect 2, merge/redirect 3, move 1 and keep 3.5 (0.5 being the "weak keep"). Reviewing this count in the light of the arguments presented, I find a consensus against retaining an article dedicated to this man at this time, because most here feel that all coverage of him relates to the report he wrote, as does almost all of the article, which makes an article about him inappropriate per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK.

Several editors have proposed merging (and hence redirecting) a part of the content to UNRWA, but this seems to already have been done to some degree. Accordingly, I am deleting the article, but will make the content available in the event that there is serious interest in merging additional content to UNRWA (subject to consensus there, of course).  Sandstein  08:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

James G. Lindsay

James G. Lindsay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Almost the entire article is devoted to Lindsay's opinions of the UNRWA, no claim of notability outside of having published a critique of the UNRWA is made. Everything in the article could go in to the UNRWA article; the entirety of the biographical information in the article is the lead and the single line on military service and education. Nableezy (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nom Nableezy (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Nableezy (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (merging any useful material to UNRWA first). Doesn't seem notable enough for own article (and by the by bio info is dangerously close to copyvio of the sources). Rd232 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep seems more than just a run of the mill clerk BUT I might be wrong. In any case, undue weight given to that report in this BLP article. Make more consise and move that to UNWRA. --Shuki (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong, Strong, Strong Keep LOL. Heads up everyone: Me and Nableezy are currently in a dispute over Charities accused of ties to terrorism. The dispute has been roadblocked with both of us accusing each other of edit warring and POV-pushing. Nableezy has seen the James Lindsay before, never edited it, and never voiced any concerns at . Therefore, I personally consider this a violation of Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. If there are specific concerns about the article, it should be first addressed in talk. Going straight to AFD (especially considering our relationship Nableezy) is beyond suspect. Obviously the AFD will be 50/50 because bio in question is by a person who isn't a fan/supporter/fencer of Hamas or Palestinians in general. All answers and questions should be argued in talk. Not in AFD, at least not yet. I am wiling to discuss any and all disputes, but again that's for talk. I encourage a strong "no consensus" and/or immediate close so we can solve issues in talk. If problems remain, and nothing is changing, AFD seems like a logical conclusion. But it is my opinion Nableezy has no concern about the article and the timing of our feud cannot be a coincidence. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Information pertinent to the UNRWA has been merged with the article and Palestinian refugee. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  • He doesn't seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC, not least because he isn't one (the Institute is just a thinktank). And categorisation is irrelevant to notability; what evidence is there that he passes WP:BIO? Rd232 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Comment Wrong. James G. Lindsay passes the following guideslines

6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy is a major force in the I/P conflict and general Middle Eastern issues. Dismissing it as it's "just a thinktank," is dare I say, incredibly ignorant. If preferred, remove the Academic category. I won't fight.

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

If we consider the "thinktank" an "academic institution" (bear with me here), his involvement outside far exceeds. Being the head attorney of the UNRWA is major, especially when that head leaves on a bad note. Perhaps my logic is flawed, but yours is misguided. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, these kinds of complaints a rather minor. Your concern boils down to a "dubious" category. Solution? Remove it. Guess where these kinds of complaints are expected to go? TALK. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, multiple noes. From Washington Institute for Near East Policy: a "Washington, DC-based think tank". Not only that, but it was founded by "Martin Indyk, a research director for AIPAC" - not exactly a university spinoff, is it? Ergo he's not an academic. His position at UNRWA preceded his Institute appointment, so it can hardly be an impact "in his academic capacity". And I don't care about the categorisation at this point, we're discussing whether the article should be deleted or not. In any case, even if we were to accept him as an academic, he would still fail notability on that point - see WP:ACADEMIC note 13 clarifying the meaning of the Criterion 6 you quote above: "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution". Finally, per Scopus he has no academic publications that I can see. Rd232 04:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Still disagree, however I suggest the dispute be merged with talk to avoid derailment of AFD. If this is your argument for deletion, I rest my case. I agree the article hardly resembles the typical-academic bio, so a removal of the category "American academics" seems logical pending a more thorough discussion. But, again, this has little to do with the AFD. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense: the article is proposed for deletion on grounds of notability. It is countered that he is a notable academic. I'm explaining he is not an academic and certainly not a notable academic. How exactly is that not relevant to this AFD? Rd232 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This article , for example, in the Jewish Standard speaks to the issue of making "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." He is interviewed as an expert on UNWRA in this article, in relation to enforcement of the U.S. 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  As explained above he's not an academic (he has no academic, peer reviewed publications). He could still be considered to meet the general notability guidelines if there was substantial coverage of him. There doesn't seem to be. Rd232 13:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Move. Given his report has received answer from the UNRWA itself, it has become notorious. It is even stated it should received new ones. More, it seems that this person is notorious (maybe not reliable but that is not the point) concerning this organisation. I would suggest to slighlty modify to content and to move to James Lindsay's report about UNRWA. Ceedjee (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The report plays a pivotal rule in the article, but it isn't the article. I don't see how we could possibly craft an article like "James Lindsay's report about the UNRWA." It seems extremely silly when what we have is basically the same thing with relevant character info and relationships beyond the UNRWA. Plus, the major parts of the report which explicitly judge the UNRWA are currently in the UNRWA article (linked above). It makes no sense to create a new article that would likely end up being just a content fork of the UNRWA section. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Then I think more information should be found/added about Lindsay because he is on the edge for what concerns his notoriaty... Eg, his predecessors and successors at his posts don't have articles (have they ?). If he is notorious only his report, that makes things hard... Ceedjee (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Rd232 13:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this coatrack. Pretty standard lawyer with a gripe and no wider notoriety. Oh and LOL that heading a wingnut thinktank makes one an academic! Grace Note (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• "head" the institute? He's not even a permanent staff member! Calling it "wingnut", though, is hardly helpful. Rd232 03:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have to say I agree with Wikifan's argument re notability. I believe there is also something in WP about not shutting out minority views, not sure where exactly. The concept must hold across WP, not just within articles. There are plenty of highlighted "general counsels" and other academics that support the common narrative regarding Palestine & UNWRA. Lindsay is important because he does not. Notoriety is a form of notability. See for example Jack the Ripper & Boston Strangler or Lyndon LaRouche. Lindsay is sought as for expert opinion by reliable sources such as the Jewish Standard above. (I also support Wikifan's take that Nableezy did this as an attempt to punish him for his position in that article, but that's another issue) Also want to distance myself from any suggestions of bad faith in relation to Rd232. While I may not always agree with him, I don't see bad faith here. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Move/Merge. The guy wrote a report critical of a group, how many people have done that? WP:ONEVENT, anyone? The material may be appropriate for Wiki in an article about the report or about UNRWA if its notability can be separately established.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Copy and Paste Response This point has been stated dozens of times in spite of thorough rationales: Here is one of them from a previous discussion: "I think we've become highly dependent on rules to provide rationale while avoiding actual argument which ironically meet the standards of Misplaced Pages:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. In response to your point, it is your interpretation that Lindsay's notability solely rest on a "report." This is extremely unfair categorization. Lindsay isn't this person. Lindsay has been covered by BBC, CNN, UN, JP, etc. He has had a long career in the US government and UN programs aside from the UNRWA. Please, my rationale extends for paragraphs while you simply continue with refuted guidelines. Methinks this AFD is ideology driven rather than concern for the article. What's next? Also - Same IPer is involved in disputes at Charity and has taken an opposing stance, as is Rd and Nableezy. Just an update. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to UNRWA. Would those editors who're spamming this AfD until it's hard to find the issues among all the rhetoric please stop?—S Marshall /_Cont 22:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As described in my argument for Keep, notable information has been merged already. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh good. In that case redirect to UNRWA.—S Marshall /_Cont 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Redirect what? James Lindsay? If so that means you endorse the belief that James Lindsay is 100% synonymous with the UNRWA and an individual article is not justified. His leadership roles, influence in and outside of the UN, etc...all irrelevant. I prefer clarification over 1 sentence rationales (especially when against the pages of arguments, much of which was dedicated to the merge/move argument.) I encourage you to read through that. Not sure if your collapsing edit might prevent editors from reviewing, so I hope it does not. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I do mean that after considering the arguments, I feel we should redirect James G. Lindsay to UNRWA. I feel this obscure american lawyer does not have sufficient notability to merit his own article on Misplaced Pages.—S Marshall /_Cont 23:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Uh? Obscure lawyer? I rest my case. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It is odd how none of the supposedly "concerned" editors who initiated the AFD did not refer to talk. Many of the concerns made here could have been solved there, so the AFD is suspect. Nableezy's behavior cannot be ignored. If this deletion review were to succeed, it would be a grave injustice to the whole process which exists solely to prevent actions like these. Truly tragic. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  The only tragic thing is that you don't seem to understand this process. Demonstrate notability using verifiable reliable sources. It's not always easy, and if it's not possible the article will be deleted; but it's really quite a simple proposition. Rd232 00:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  Comment I've demonstrated notability plenty. You've continually cited policy after policy when things didn't go your way. Then you relied on insulting generalizations which lead me to believe you've never read Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy as most administrators involved in AFD should be familiar with. Your use habitual use of fallacies which have consumed the majority of arguments make the likelihood for a clear and thoughtful discussion practically zero. Notability is verified by his leadership role inside and outside the United Nations, specifically the UNRWA, and includes but not limited to addressing the problems within the UNRWA through a widely-covered report that influences opinion to this day. You dismissal of Lindsay as "merely legal counsel" while supporting Peter Hansen (UN) (which is comparable in both notability and sources) is suspect. No, it isn't suspect. It's pretty clear you want this article deleted for ulterior reasons outside protocol. Or else you wouldn't have relied on such out-of-bounds debating tactics, that has gone unabated and responded with indifference aside from myself for whatever reasons. At best, the article should be expanded, improved, and those who hate it should invest time in talk like every other editor who wants to collaborate. You seem dedicated, almost righteous in your quest for deletion, but like Nableezy provided no concerns or suggestions in talk. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  A good summary of your position, with an extra helping of breaching WP:AGF. I don't "hate" this article, how ludicrously emotional of you. If his position and media coverage is so significant, then it won't be hard for you to demonstrate enough secondary coverage outside of WP:BLP1E (i.e. not just in relation to the one report). Do that and I'll vote keep. I don't know if you assume I'm not debating in good faith and open to persuasion because you're not, or because you're too emotionally involved with the topic. Either way, take a deep breath and focus on the policies and guidelines which make WP work, and how they apply to this article. Finally, a reminder: if this article is deleted, it has no bearing on the use of the report as a source elsewhere in WP, which I have the impression is your main concern. (Otherwise, I just don't see how a potential delete/merge of this article could angry up the blood so.) Rd232 01:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Long response Right, so now this is an AGF issue. Sorry, but Nableezy's posting of this AFD defiles all that is assuming good faith. He transferred what was basically an irrational and classic I vs Per argument into a personal vendetta, by posting an article I've worked relatively hard on (in collaboration with several editors, with the exception of you and Nab) for deletion. As an admin, that should have been recognized off the bat. But you didn't, no. In fact, you encouraged it. Please, your argument for BLP1e is weak, as is your absurd reliance on fallacies. Between you and Nab, the following rule-spamming has occurred with little rationale for most: WP:Coatrack, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTORIETY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:ONEEVENT, and now WP:AGF. What now? WP:DoAsISayOrIllThreatenYouWithMoreRules1111!! :D I've carefully responded to most of the claims, even ones that without substantial rationale and were eventually supported with fallacies as I've mentioned and proved previously. But, let's go back to your rule BLP1e. This is basically a rehash of Nableezy's original argument for deletion. I'm going to paste and copy the entire section from the rule so there is no confusing:

• "Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Misplaced Pages article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

• If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.

• If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."

I hope I'm representing your POV fairly. You've mentioned that rule several times but mostly end with, "violates x, x, and x...". First off, you continually ignore Lindsay's participation in activities outside of the report. As I said, he was second to UN observational force, played leadership roles in high government positions, and was a chief-legal adviser to the UNRWA, a $100,000,000+ per annum organization, though I think it was more during Lindsay's service. He happened to have written a scathing report on the UNRWA's dealings, which generated a response from the United Nations. His actions have influenced perception of the organization on a global scale, an organization that is crucial in the on-going Palestinian-Israel conflict. You have understated Lindsay's notability outside of the report, with statements like..He was "merely legal counsel" while at the same time having no problems with an equally notable Peter Hansen (UN). This isn't an example of OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but a flaw in your objectivity. Oh, and he is a member of a powerful "thinktank" (which apparently means nothing these days...) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• merge and redirect to UNRWA per one event. he's no hinckley.

point #2 above is actually my argument as well: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." untwirl(talk) 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate his notability, not based on what you think makes him notable unless they meet one of the notability guidelines, but based on reliable 3rd party sources, covering him and not the report? Nableezy (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you read my rationale and ask the question again? I've listed BLPE1 and included explicit and simple examples that relate solely to the subject matter. I spent an unreasonable amount of time writing that and for you to dismiss it as merely opinion/conjecture/rhetoric might be considered a comprehension error on your end. I don't want you to derail the post like you've done in the past so only respond if you have something truly unique to say. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont see a single source in that rationale, much less a single reliable third party source covering him and not the event. That is what proves notability, that is all you need to be able to do. If that is not possible then the article should be deleted. Nableezy (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The argument between Rd and I in this instance was not about sources, it was regarding BLPEI and notability. Sources can be found in the article. BBC, UN, JP, CNN, and bio site (thinktank) are solid references. Your stonewalling and willful dismissal of pages of extensive, thorough, and detailed arguments is dare I say...insulting. I encourage you to make a new section or something because I do not want you derailing this. Similar, no, exact questions have been asked above and all have been responded to. There is an argument-by-repetition fallacy out there but I'll have to find it lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, enjoy: Ad nauseam. Notice how it fits your approach...almost perfectly! : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Those sources are covering the event, the bio isnt a third party source. I guess you cannot find 3rd party reliable sources covering him and not the event. Nableezy (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So? We have sources that cover the bio, sources that cover the UN report, sources that cover the UN response, and sources that cover the Hansen reference. Many of the BBC, Jpost, CNN, etc... all verify various details of Lindsay's career. Like the Jpost has a piece on his experience with the UNRWA etc... Please Nab, no one can convince you. To be honest I do not care. You'll write everything off no matter what, leave the partisan debates for another time. Feel content you likely not be punished for your unprecedented disrupting and hounding. To continually dismiss notability appears to be a a programmed response rather than an objective, qualified request when compared with the available information and arguments provided. Hopefully a decision is made soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So is simple, to demonstrate notability you need reliable 3rd party sources covering him and not the event. Nableezy (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd party sources cover him. Again, repetitive fallacy. Tundra wrote a thorough yet simple rationale, but as I said your POV is a sharp and tragic confliction. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you list here all the 3rd party WP:RS sources which cover the life and work of Lindsay - excluding those which relate to the one UNRWA report. A few of those and then BLP1E probably won't apply. That's all. Stop asserting that they exist, and provide them. Thanks. Rd232 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The "rationale" you seem to rely on is what Tundra wrote somewhere (far) above: "Keep and Expand. Lindsay is appropriately categorized among American academics, American foreign policy writers, American legal writers, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Writers on the Middle East, & University of Missouri-Columbia alumni, and probably more. Many academics are single-issue people, and Lindsay's knowledge and opinions on his issue is unique, since he has been a participant; not an outsider. There is no question regarding notability. The way to improve this article is by expansion, not deletion." I've responded to this before, but (a) categorisation is not proof of notability (b) he's not an academic (I think we agree on this) so it's irrelevant whether he's single-issue (plus red herring anyway); (c) it's irrelevant for notability whether Tundra thinks Lindsay's knowledge and opinions are unique - we rely on WP:RS, not on editors' opinions. Those WP:RS only cover Lindsay in the context of the one report, so per WP:BLP1E we cover the report in its own article if it's important enough, or merge elsewhere if it isn't. Rd232 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Issue is addressed in a lengthy post above (you have yet to respond.) Respond to it, or don't I couldn't care less. This is Nableezy's section. Discussion must involve mutual and fair cooperation. I've been thorough and precise yet you continue with the broken-record. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You may continue to think that you have addressed the issue, but you have not. Can you provide a reliable third party source covering him and not the event? And its not 'Nableezy's section'. Nableezy (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Suit yourself. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink... Rd232 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Here, to make it really easy for you: go as far down this Google search as you like, excluding non-WP:RS and sources relating to that single UNRWA report. If you find any, add them to the article. Rd232 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you are now editing the article. Thank, collaboration is much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)

Well you mentioned BBC and CNN sources, so I checked in the article. BBC doesn't mention Lindsay and CNN is about the report (now deleted and replaced with Jerusalem Post, which was the correct attribution for the quote used). I've googled a bit and can't find any WP:RS not relating to the report; perhaps you can do better. Rd232 02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• DeleteSubject is non-notable and the article is mostly a quote dump. An article mostly consisting of carefully selected quotes from a polemic isn't encyclopedic. Therefore, this article won't be a great loss once deleted. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails bio.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fails to reach notability threshhold, academic or otherwise. Being a critc in itself is not a notable or defining characteristic. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Limited notability. Can't find this guy in Google News archives at all. There's a James Lindsay at the University of Texas at Austin, but that's someone else. --John Nagle (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:BIO/WP:N. No evidence of his notability has been presented and there seems to be none to found. Tiamut 17:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Dlabtot (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and/or redirect to UNRWA per WP:BIO1E. There's a small sourced factual core of the article (that he was general counsel for UNRWA) but this part does not support notability; the bulk of the article is a coatrack for his criticism of UNRWA rather than being about him. I'm seeing this because of its listing on the deletion sorting list for academics, but I don't think he passes any criterion of WP:PROF: not #1 because his criticism of UNRWA is not an academic work and its impact is not academic, and not #5 because a think tank is not a research university. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to the alphabetical organization that this obvious coatrack article is actually about. P.S. I am neither an 'I' nor a 'P'. I'm a 'WB'. Baseball Bugs carrots 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure how important this is but I would like to point it out: It seems the keep/delete "votes" are split between the obvious P's and I's (with the exception of R2). Epstein was involved in a prior dispute with me over a Noam Elkies and accused me of promoting "blood purity." I remember that one lol. Just making sure everyone understands the background. The listing of academic was in the category. No where in the article is it said or proved that he is an academic. I think a user asked it to be sorted because it was a possibility, perhaps they confused him with another James Lindsay who is a professor. Epstein, all your valid points have been addressed to death in the crowded responses above. I know it's hard to navigate, but all rules...BLP1E, ACADEMIC, COATTRACK, OTHERCRAPEXISTS....have experienced intense debates. The policy shopping was at times became unbearable, but reasonable arguments were provided from both sides and cans till be found. Someone could paste and copy previous posts to make it easier. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What does your past history have to do with this AfD? Regardless, I consider your assumption of partisanship among the participants here to be a personal attack and a I request that you refrain from making or expressing such bad-faith assumptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

R2 mentioned something about P vs I vote count and he woefully overstated it. From my count, we have maybe 1 or 2 who are sufficiently outside hostile territory. Then again, voting isn't part of the process. Disputes aren't particularly unique aside from affirming points and arguments made above. Not trying to o distract from the actual argument (regardless of POV), but I just wanted to make that correction for R2 and anyone else who is curious. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You have way too much time on your hands. It was a passing comment that those uninvolved were falling clearly on once side of the debate. Rd232 04:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I've just edited with almost all of these users before. By "uninvolved" do you mean uninvolved in the article or uninvolved in terms of Pal/Is? If it's the latter, than not really. Of all the people "voting", I see 3 that I've never collaborated with and don't know their editing style/POV. You're one of them. ;D As I said, not particularly relevant to actual arguments but it was an inaccuracy I had to correct, if only in a passing comment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen to what i say please. I wasn't commenting on the number of people uninvolved, I was commenting on the views of those uninvolved. Obviously who is uninvolved is debatable, but it makes no difference whether you construe the group widely or narrowly, a matter I obviously have no interest in debating, thank you very much, not least because it's irrelevant. (Hence my comment about you having too much time.) Rd232 12:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep—subject appears somewhat notable outside the UNRWA controversy, even if it is difficult to establish notability. Of course, he gained much notoriety following the UNRWA incident, which is in itself a notable incident, covered by numerous news sources, political blogs, etc. etc. Since the incident does not have an article, there is no reason to delete this one. A move like Ceedjee suggested would be an acceptable solution for the time being, as I concede that Lindsay's individual notability is borderline and by now too tied to the UNRWA indicent. —Ynhockey 05:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a POV fork? If it is just about the report then the information should be, and is in the UNRWA article. Nableezy (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

POV fork of what? It has to fork from another article or published POV. Does the article suffer from a lack of neutrality? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A POV fork is an article that is inherently POV/biased because of the subject matter it covers (e.g. List of killings done by Jews in 1955, or something), especially if it's part of a larger neutral topic. An article about an event is not a POV fork. The UNRWA letter should be described in context, and due weight should be given to all notable opinions on the matter. —Ynhockey 00:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was thinking the article would be dedicated to the report itself, which I think would be a fork from the UNRWA article where the material is covered in its proper context. Nableezy (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, per David Eppstein -- not notable outside UNRWA issue, this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per ynhockey.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• delete Seems like a coatrack to talk about UNRWA. If someone can point to more sourcing about Lindsay it might make sense. I have no objection to merging relevant content into the UNRWA article but most of that seems to already be there. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note to the managing administrator: Apparently by mistake, my vote was collapsed onto the last collapsed section above. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I collapsed the discussion because it paired well with the "does not comply." I'd imagine it would be easier for an admin to sift through the collapses instead of trying to pick out scattered and repetitive arguments. You could write "Keep, commentary in x collapse" so there is no confusion. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep The article is a coatrack, and Lindsay does seem to derive his notability from one event, and there's no way he meets WP:PROF. That said, ynhockey makes a very fair point that this is precisely the sort of person with sufficient credentials, whose entry into a charged political debate makes it likely that people will be interested in him, and coverage clearly sufficient for WP:BIO will emerge (it's currently borderline, IMO). We've clearly not heard the last of him, and enough material for a stubby bio exists. That said, the current article clearly needs to be pared down, and I think the suggestion of forking the content about the letter is a good one. Ray 06:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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.