Talk:Avrohom Pinter

BLP issues

Large sections of this BLP rely on primary sources, namely op-ed's and LTTE. This is against policy which states that "Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." A disproportionate amount of space is given to a newspaper columnist's particular viewpoint, which is also against policy. There are also a plethora of other problems with the way material is presented. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources", which this article fails to provide, therefore such poorly sourced material about a living person should be removed immediately and without discussion. Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

With respect, Alderman reports factual events in a national newspaper and in doing so he is not opining, he would have had editor approval. The JC is clearly a secondary source here. His viewpoints on AP were not stated and were presented in context. Primary sources are described as "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. I believe you have also removed other material here and on the Ephrayim Padwa page which has none of the problems you mention above. I shall request admin intervention on both. Shackwelllane (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Alderman's pieces are regarded as priamry source for themselves. While generally presented in a balanced fashion here, his views were given far too much weight. Chesdovi (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No they are not. It is not only his viewpoint that is reported but his testimony and evidence.Shackwelllane (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

He was not reporting for the JC, but authored an op-ed. Therefore we can quote him, but this article cannot be 80% based on his material. Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I can accept that, but you are in effect blanking this page. I don't see that is being productive. I shall reinstate the YHS section which is his most significant role and which does enrich this article.Shackwelllane (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability

I Would like to remind editors that adding the notability tag because the 8th most influential label "was 5 years ago" is wrong. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This is all rather bizarre, a user edits a page into stub size, and then claims that subjects are not notable on two pages where there is clear and well sourced secondary coverage. Notability is not a correlate of wiki page size.Shackwelllane (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided sufficient sources to establish Pinter’s notability. A person’s notability for Wikipedia is established using specific criteria and relying solely on the tabloid style "JC power list" (of 2008) is questionable. We do not create an article for every school principle. We do not create an article for every person who publically questions the findings of a Synagogue Membership Report and we certainly do not create an article for each of Mr Alderman’s victims. Chesdovi (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

See edit of 02:29, 3 September 2010 and prior there has already been a notability debate on this page.Shackwelllane (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hackney Borough Council

There is nothing in the text at present to indicate that he was a Borough councillor.

The entry can be transferred here [1] as sufficiently relevant there. 19:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What was this meeting?

What was this meeting? Is it notable?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DZDrYcVW0AA0m08.jpg

131.111.184.102 (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)