Deletion of Gershon Wiesenfeld

Comment: Your argument 1 is patently false. There is neither an implied requirement nor a presumption that someone be an expert on an article to edit. In fact this is stated right on the Wikipedia:Introduction|WP Intro Page, in , etc. In essence, nobody  any particular article. Arguments 2, 3, and 5 build further upon the  concept you are trying to push, attempt to discredit people who would apply WP policies, and basically plead the "just give it more time" position. Argument 4 tries to shift the burden away from those who wrote the article from the responsibility of documenting it and to instead cast any skeptics as mean-spirited editors who don't care. I'll not have it and here's why. Invariably, these articles have no  because there ''is'' no  out there to be had. To "just give it more time" is to stall. Take the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzvi Berkowitz|Berkowitz article again as an example. It ''still'' has no reliable sources that demonstrate notability, despite the fact that I raised this issue last May and even took it to AfD! This is predictably when the special pleading|pleading starts regarding how regular policies shouldn't apply in this case. The AfD archive is ''full'' of instances like this. I'm afraid what this boils down to is no , no article. I think again that our dear colleague
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:BOLD||WP:OWNS||WP:OWNERSHIP||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS)