473:
Mosmof you sound like a broken record. Removing this entry has tried and failed, whats new about trying to remove it and it failed a few months ago ? yes it is your criteria nowhere does it say how many media mentions/features are needed. and I'd argue that the OBserver and
Business Week are in fact
279:
of a subject, and none of the sources cited qualifies - the NY Observer profile is brief by any reasonable standard. Second, appearing in various publications does not make a subject notable. It could just mean that he has a good publicist and keeps him in contact with the press. Now, if you can find
325:
KEEP A feature surely means being included in the list of most noteable people in NY Real Estate for perhaps the most prestigious NY Real Estate publication. Business Week and
Bloomberg were extensive features, as was Observer. Check Google news today and see if he's "always quoted in Manhattan real
220:
Individual sold more real estate than anyone else @ 15 CPW, which is NY's most expensive development. That alone is legendary. Beyond that, Business Week, The
Observer and countless others have featured him. Surely he's very noteable. (and the Observer wasnt a whos who it ranked top 15 real estate
394:
Mosmof wasnt aware that your criteria for noteability is in-depth coverage. And yes, Business Week and
Observer features would constitue in-depth coverage. You tried this tactic 6 months ago and were defeated. If nothings changed pls lets agree the page should remain intact. His case is now
371:
If you're going to try to pass yourself off as a different person, you might want to try a different writing style and a new misspelling for "notable". But anyway, please don't misrepresent what I wrote. I'm saying that "always quoted in
Manhattan real estate articles" is
242:
Strong Keep. Yes he is an attorney and developer, and 1 of the most successful in the US representing oligarchs who buy. Clearly thats a major big deal on its own. Stong keep (and Mosmof, mentioning the NY Observer article alone makes it relevant and noteable.)
628:
I've done a rewrite using the sources we already had and left out what I thought were extraneous details or plaudits. There's still some biographical details missing and not sure if the article will expand beyond stub level, but it's a little better now, I think?
349:
And a further KEEP would come from reading the
Subjects talk page and see that this same user tried this same tactic 6 months ago and similarly then was defeated. Check Mermelsteins public record since then. Countless coverage and success. Very noteable.
380:(and for the love of Buddha, would it kill you to actually read the policies in discussion?). It doesn't matter how often he's quoted or mentioned. The question is whether he's a subject of in-depth coverage - that, you have yet to demonstrate.
202:. Subject is a Manhattan real estate attorney who gets quoted for comment by publications, but as far as I can tell after some Googling, he himself has not been the subject of in-depth coverage beyond a "who's who" type profile in the
513:
are about the subject, and there are dozens of other mentions in the Google News archives that assume notability. But the article as currently written doesn't come close to meeting
Knowledge (XXG) standards, and should be stubified.
159:
420:, please? And what are these "Business Week and Observer features" that you speak of? At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you're ignoring the difference between "mention" and "coverage". Memelstein is
532:
him. Most of the other mentions in Google News are pullquotes. With the absence of in-depth coverage, it's going to be difficult to have enough verifiable information to build anything more than a stub.
474:
features. They are. What changes do you propose to keep this live ? (make them here before you make them there). This is 1 of foremost leaders in NY Real estate he's very prominent.
280:
a reliable, third party source talk about how he's always quoted in
Manhattan real estate articles, then great. Otherwise, making a claim about how he's always in the papers amounts to
451:
206:
last year, and it's telling that no other articles link here. Also, the article has been written for the most part by his firm's PR agency, and if kept, would probably need a rewrite.
115:
395:
stronger. Are you saying being named 1 of the most prominent NYC attorneys alone isnt noteable ? Isnt selling more than anyone else in NYCs most expensive building noteable ?
153:
271:
Since the above users are likely the same person, I'll respond to both together. First, you're using "featured" very liberally, to mean "quoted" and "mentioned". What
424:
a lot, but I have yet to see a single feature article about him. What do you mean "this tactic"? You mean rules and common sense and trying to reason with you?
303:
88:
83:
549:
Have rewritten and added details. Is this now OK ? There is plenty of verifiably and important information. Others have suggested edits ?
92:
528:
See, I looked at the same two articles and saw articles about real estate that happen to mention
Mermelstein and his dealings, not articles
481:
402:
228:
576:
I think it needs a lot more work than that, but I'm happy to help. But in the meantime, please do read up on
Knowledge (XXG) policies and
48:. No support for deletion apart from the nominator and at least one independent editor thinks the article meets the notabilty guidelines.
357:
333:
75:
613:
565:
259:
17:
597:
THis has been raised before by much the same characters and should now be acceptable. Clearly newsworthy and meets news standards.
174:
141:
653:
36:
135:
511:
462:
638:
617:
589:
569:
542:
523:
489:
466:
433:
410:
389:
365:
341:
317:
293:
263:
236:
215:
57:
652:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
485:
416:
For the love of god, please learn to read. It's not MY criteria. It's basic rules of Knowledge (XXG) - do read
406:
232:
131:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
361:
337:
79:
601:
553:
477:
398:
353:
329:
247:
224:
609:
561:
508:
255:
181:
120:
458:
167:
71:
63:
53:
147:
605:
557:
251:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
634:
585:
538:
429:
385:
311:
289:
211:
577:
504:
417:
377:
272:
199:
195:
281:
519:
49:
109:
630:
581:
534:
425:
381:
285:
207:
515:
326:
estate articles" as you say is the criteria. Seems to be a strong yes.
646:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
105:
101:
97:
166:
452:
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions
180:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
656:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
446:
298:
450:: This debate has been included in the
304:list of Law-related deletion discussions
302:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
221:NY lawyers, and he was featured.)
24:
1:
639:05:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
58:09:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
618:06:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
590:20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
570:06:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
543:20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
524:23:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
490:11:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
467:02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
434:20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
411:06:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
390:00:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
366:14:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
342:14:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
318:07:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
294:06:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
264:05:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
237:05:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
216:04:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
673:
649:Please do not modify it.
193:Does not appear to meet
32:Please do not modify it.
72:Edward Mermelstein
64:Edward Mermelstein
44:The result was
621:
604:comment added by
573:
556:comment added by
480:comment added by
469:
455:
401:comment added by
356:comment added by
332:comment added by
320:
307:
282:original research
277:in-depth coverage
267:
250:comment added by
227:comment added by
204:New York Observer
664:
651:
620:
598:
572:
550:
492:
456:
413:
376:a criterion for
368:
344:
314:
308:
266:
244:
239:
185:
184:
170:
123:
113:
95:
34:
672:
671:
667:
666:
665:
663:
662:
661:
660:
654:deletion review
647:
599:
551:
475:
459:Jclemens-public
396:
351:
327:
312:
245:
222:
127:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
670:
668:
659:
658:
642:
641:
595:
594:
593:
592:
547:
546:
545:
482:68.173.122.113
471:
470:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
403:68.173.122.113
346:
345:
322:
321:
296:
229:68.173.122.113
188:
187:
124:
121:Afd statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
669:
657:
655:
650:
644:
643:
640:
636:
632:
627:
624:
623:
622:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
548:
544:
540:
536:
531:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
512:
509:
506:
502:
498:
495:
494:
493:
491:
487:
483:
479:
468:
464:
460:
453:
449:
445:
444:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
370:
369:
367:
363:
359:
358:65.112.21.194
355:
348:
347:
343:
339:
335:
334:65.112.21.194
331:
324:
323:
319:
316:
315:
305:
301:
297:
295:
291:
287:
283:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
240:
238:
234:
230:
226:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
198:
197:
192:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
648:
645:
625:
606:Babasalichai
596:
558:Babasalichai
529:
500:
496:
472:
447:
421:
373:
310:
299:
276:
275:requires is
252:Babasalichai
241:
219:
203:
194:
190:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
45:
43:
31:
28:
600:—Preceding
552:—Preceding
476:—Preceding
397:—Preceding
352:—Preceding
328:—Preceding
313:Jujutacular
246:—Preceding
223:—Preceding
154:free images
422:mentioned
614:contribs
602:unsigned
566:contribs
554:unsigned
503:. Meets
478:unsigned
399:unsigned
354:unsigned
330:unsigned
260:contribs
248:unsigned
225:unsigned
116:View log
50:Davewild
626:Comment
497:Rewrite
160:WPÂ refs
148:scholar
89:protect
84:history
631:Mosmof
582:Mosmof
578:WP:MOS
535:Mosmof
505:WP:GNG
426:Mosmof
418:WP:BIO
382:Mosmof
378:WP:BIO
286:Mosmof
273:WP:BIO
208:Mosmof
200:WP:BIO
196:WP:GNG
191:DELETE
132:Google
93:delete
530:about
175:JSTOR
136:books
118:) •
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
635:talk
610:talk
586:talk
562:talk
539:talk
520:talk
510:and
501:keep
499:and
486:talk
463:talk
448:Note
430:talk
407:talk
386:talk
362:talk
338:talk
300:Note
290:talk
284:. --
256:talk
233:talk
212:talk
168:FENS
142:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
516:THF
457:--
374:not
309:--
182:TWL
114:– (
637:)
616:)
612:•
588:)
580:.
568:)
564:•
541:)
522:)
507::
488:)
465:)
454:.
432:)
409:)
388:)
364:)
340:)
306:.
292:)
262:)
258:•
235:)
214:)
162:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
633:(
608:(
584:(
560:(
537:(
518:(
484:(
461:(
428:(
405:(
384:(
360:(
336:(
288:(
254:(
231:(
210:(
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.