Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Pollack

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. The claims to notability aren't clearly substantiated and the article has insufficient legitimate sources. Srikeit 04:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Pollack

Henry Pollack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a borderline case. The guy seems like he would be notable, and thus have sources on him. The problem is, the only sources I can find on this Henry Pollack are the article cited in the references section and various copies of a Department of Justice press release. I'm not sure that's enough to have an article, but it's kinda ambiguous. So I formally have no opinion, leaning towards delete. It just needs some discussion. Amarkov moo! 00:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: A fair chunk of the article was contributed by the article's subject (editing as User:Enriquepollack). As a result, there is a fair bit of POV present but it should be presumed that to some extent the facts are accurate. Tabercil 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Based on the sources that I can find, the only thing I have been able to verify is that the legal aspect to the article is correct. However, since wikipedia is not a newspaper, I would have to see the sources that lend credence to his other activities. the_undertow ^talk 02:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep seems notable for the radio show. The criminal matter is in my opinion trivial (As a Federal employee, he tried to get the health insurance program to pay for human growth hormone) , and despite being a conviction, I'm dubious about the fairness of including it. Should be sourcable. DGG 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only legitimate claims to notability (the radio program) are unsourced. As for the health care fraud, cases like these are of the everyday ilk, even for political staffers. Fails WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:BIO. Caknuck 04:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Caknuck. Apart from the run-of-the-mill health care case this is VSCA. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Hosting a radio talk show to a small area without any acclaim from non-trivial sources and being convicted of fraud does not assert notability. Sr13 (T|C) 08:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The claim of notability is unsubstantiated. --JodyB _talk 10:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - As per above. ;-) I'd like more credible references. ;-) Cheers, RelentlessRecusant 12:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete lack of sources usually means there are notability issues as well. /Blaxthos 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Barely meets the threshold of notability Corpx 16:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep: There are other references than the US press release. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 22:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. FNMF 06:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article has been controversial, and being a BLP, needs more sources to justify it. nadav 07:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak KeepHe is a personality in South Florida and should be kept. As it has been edited now with all things verifiable I think it meets the requirements. Callelinea 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete very POV article in my mind.BeckyAnne 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete; I personally think he's notable enough due to the radio showe and anti-Castro activism, but there are not multiple independent reliable sources for the article. All there is right now is a DOJ press release and a law publication that reprinted it. (The books about Cuba are very general references not really showing the subject's personal notability.) If someone can add good sources on his career, political activities, and a collateral reference for the criminal case, I would support keeping the article, but as of now it does not meet WP:BIO. --MCB 23:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no way for a reader to easily verify the information in this article. It's a bunch of gossip. After being listed for five days, nobody has been able to add reliable sources. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 20:15, 11 May 2007 (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.