Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zalman Shapiro

Zalman Shapiro

Zalman Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose merging the NUMEC and the Apollo affair section to Apollo affair because as it stands it is an inadvertent yet significant WP:CFORK, which also lags the other page in quality. It should just refer to that other page more briefly. If there's any material from this page section that isn't in the other page, it should probably be incorporated. Dingolover6969 (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion/merge - Shapiro was notable for more than just the "Apollo affair" - which seems likely to remain a controversial topic more or less indefinitely. Sure, it may well make sense to shorten the section in this article and point it to the standalone article, but that's a far cry from deleting this article, which wouldn't improve the encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  19:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  Right, I fully agree. I should be clear: I only suggest merging that section into the other article. Dingolover6969 (talk) 05:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - I think this is a misunderstanding of the merge process. A proposal for a merge going through AfD is "the process of uniting two or more articles into a single article." In a brief skim, I don't particularly see any key points or facts that are in Shaprio's article but not the Apollo affair article, and if there were, I believe it's perfectly fine to copy individual WP:RS'd claims with attribution into one article or another. Neither is approaching the character limit under WP:SUMMARY.

As Frank said, certainly Shapiro is notably outside of the affair and his page deserves to continue to exist. Yojo98 (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's fair. I'm not personally aware of any more appropriate venue for raising the issue in the OP (I guess just the talk page?) but if this isn't it I would be fine with a procedural (if that is the right word) close of this afd proposal. I also think the two pages should continue to exist distinctly. Dingolover6969 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2026 (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.