- 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 Keep and cleanup, tag added. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David Chernoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article is nothing more than a promotional piece: it's a rewrite of http://cby.org/dchernoff.html with only cosmetic changes (it was previously deleted as a direct copyright infringement); the subject is not notable - there are only a moderate number of ghits that appear to relate to David Chernoff and none of them fit the requirements of WP:NN; unreferenced; non-neutral (e.g. "he was both dramatically saved and filled with the Holy Spirit") contra to WP:NPOV; unencyclopedic. andy (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Despite some issues with the formation of this article, the subject does appear to be notable. A quick search through Google News and Google Books brings up enough hits to make the case, despite some of these hits being irrelevant. See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?lr=&tab=pn&q=%22David+Chernoff%22&ie=UTF-8 and http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22David+Chernoff%22&btnG=Search+Books (Mind meal (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep in spite of COI problems, the subject is notable enough, and there seems to be sources. DGG (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a difficult case. His google-fu as a figure in messianic Judaism seems quite high; he is clearly someone that everyone in that community knows of. Finding a reference from outside the community has proven very difficult, though I did find this article from Christianity Today. So at this point I'd say keep, but not with a lot of enthusiasm. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, especially wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t15:54z
- Delete. Content is not encyclopedic. --Funper (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs more references but the subject seems to be notable and worthy of mention on wikipedia. Nothing will be gained from wiping out knowledge that could benefit someone.Georgiamonet (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised I have addressed the wikify tag and cleaned up a significant amount of the prose, discarding unverifiable claims and his personal conversion story. -- RoninBK T C 14:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I marked the original copyvio for deletion, and was unenthusiastic about the recreation, but this revision seems encyclopedic and the subject seems notable. The article is now off to a good start. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (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.