Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Don Juravin


 * 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. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)'''.

Don Juravin
Concerns of Lack of notability; also possible promotionalism, and possible NPOV. That the subject has written the book is not disputed; but this book present a seemingly plausible but complex non-mainstream analysis of the Hebrew Bible. It is in the subject's best interests that this view is promoted. Wikiquote should not be used for such promotion unless their are good independent sources for such a book. The obvious thing would be to persist an article on the English Wikipedia but that does not seemed to have been achieved even if it was attempted. The onus then falls on the article here to present a reliable independent claims of notability and that has not be to have been achieved. The nearest thing matching the name "Don Juravin" as an independently reliable reliable source I've found seems to relate to some litigations but to be very clear these may relate to a different person that than the subject. The three main contributors to this article do not appear to have made and contributions to any other Wikiquote article. — User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Vote closes: 08:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Secondary independent sources added. Removed sources and quotes that are not according to the WikiQuote guidelines. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Correctthedots (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC) All of the possibly promotive sources are removed. Replaced with independent sources. Subject is a researcher and has written a book for analysis of the Hebrew Bible, but the link that was previously posted is removed. Independent sources are needed if a book needs to posted on Wikiquote. Subject's Wikiquote page has been updated.


 * Keep:ClockTickTock (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Subject's sources are changed to independent. With a quick look up, I discovered that the subject is a Bible researcher and spiritual mentor. I suggest for this subject to be kept as changes on its page are being done.


 * Delete: (nominator) -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 07:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing the issues. I will correct the page with reliable secondary sources following the Wikiquote guidelines. The page is not created for promotion but to share quotes of Don Juravin, an entrepreneur and researcher. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing the issues. I will correct the page with reliable secondary sources following the Wikiquote guidelines. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of notability; also, the first quote is pure self-promotion. Markjoseph125 (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Markjoseph125. Removed the quote after researching that the quote was also about a past working place. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: (to closer by nominator). I observe claims the press releases are reliable sources. There are very good reasons why COI would be desperate to retain this article to maintain a high place on Google searches, and a concerted effort to fake notability made just prior to earliest vote those and w:WP:BLUDGEON through a keep. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The WikiQuote page of Don Juravin, has been updated as it is requested (with secondary independent sources). There are thousands of WikiQuote pages of people with sources from news sites or any other website(independent or not) and they are not being accused or judged of "desperately trying to retain an article to show up on Google". If that was the case, why the subject of this page didn't have a WikiQuote page 4-5 years ago? Google shows that his researches (Societal, Economic or Biblical) and quotes are published on news sites 4-5 years ago, and it is Google's job to index a page according to different factors and shouldn't be a comment here, as there are thousands of subjects on WikiQuote, of which, if you search on Google, will see that WikiQuote retains a high place on Google.
 * Coming from the fact that WikiQuote has to be from a neutral point of view, comments about possibilities shouldn't be a comment here, and if the subject has shared quotes, researches and thoughts about those researches, like every subject on WikiQuote, he should have a page. I also see that there are contributors who observe the page as corrected according to the request from the nominator. Mr.Durnbey (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2023 (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.