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. Although paid editors are problematic, if the sources support inclusion and consensus here is that they do, the page should be kept. J04n(
talk page) 13:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Article states facts and brings plenty of reliable sources to back them up. Successful businessman. No clear reason for deletion--
Geewhiz (
talk) 08:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
So you're saying, if somebody is successful businessmen, they can get an article. I run a very successful software consultancy, so I'm good for an article, is that your rationale.
scope_creep (
talk) 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Please provide a list of 10 or so articles in reliable sources where your successes are documented and I will write the article for you.--
Geewhiz (
talk) 09:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Point taken, if he does have sufficient coverage it will stay, I guess. See what happens.
scope_creep (
talk) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete The subject is simply a businessman with a social life and some philanthropy, and a few sources confirm this; the rest are lame irrelevancies. It does not meet
WP:BASIC or
WP:ANYBIO and smells of
WP:PROMO. (I'm not aware of criteria specifically for businessmen.) -
The Gnome (
talk) 10:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but not everyone gets write-ups in Forbes, Globes and Haaretz. Not everyone sells companies for $500 million. Not everyone has societies at Yale named for them. By the way, if you are really hot on deleting articles, there are zillions of them about space creatures and loads of one-line articles about people who play golf in their free time and cartoon characters that are crying for attention.--
Geewhiz (
talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
References 10, and 11 are dead. Both of the subjects on the sources for his companies, specifically IPO's. Doing a search the Viber sell off in Globes, mentiones the subject by name, the second one is similar name mention for the IPO. The Forbes is low quality, Richest in the country article
Clickbait article. What is there is click and IPO's.
scope_creep (
talk) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The Haaretz news article reads like a puff piece, written by a member of his own Yale society.
scope_creep (
talk) 13:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Your assessments of
Haaretz and
Forbes are your own subjective view. They are reliable sources on Wikipedia. As I mentioned above, there is much to do to improve this encyclopedia and going around deleting articles about people who have more money than you is a waste of everyone's time--
Geewhiz (
talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Geewhiz, you just made a totally irrelevant remark that constitutes a personal attack against a fellow contributor. Wikipedia does not care whether a person has made lots of money or not; the criteria for having an article about a person in Wikipedia do not include "size of fortune". You must be thinking of something else entirely. And you have no right (in fact, you are in breach of your obligations to be
be civil and to
assume good faith of other editors) to be accusing others of having some kind of an agenda here. This is more serious than the question about having an article up about someone. Do you realize this? -
The Gnome (
talk) 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
No I did not realize this. The remarks - like yours below - were just a "general observation." If you took them personally, please forgive me. At the same time, I think your tone in working to delete this article is overly aggressive. Still, I am always glad to know that there are people who take Wikipedia seriously.--
Geewhiz (
talk) 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
You say my tone is "aggressive" but aggressive against whom? I'm not attacking anyone, nor anyone's ideas. I merely express my views. (See full text of my opinion above.) I have no agenda here. You should refrain from presuming "agendas", especially without anything on which to base them, e.g. an editor's record of "aggressiveness" or an "agenda". This is honest, friendly advice but also
Wikipedia policy. Take care. -
The Gnome (
talk) 14:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Geewhiz I have no "hotness" for deleting articles from Wikipedia. I simply offer a small assistance in keeping article creation within the rules of the house. As to your argument about "zillions" of other unworthy articles (is that more than fifteen?), then, by all means, point them out here, as Articles for Deletion. Wikipedia does not have notability guidelines specifically for businessmen or entrepreneurs. Therefore, the general notability rules about living persons apply. The article's subject might be extremely successful and rich, but seemingly does not qualify for an article. That's all there is to it, as far as I'm concerned. Take care. -
The Gnome (
talk)
Keep - I concur with
Geewhiz, Shabtai is definitely notable figure and the sources are more than sufficient.
Tzahy (
talk) 18:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Reply to
Geewhiz. Having already went to Reliable Source noticeboard to ask about Forbes recently, I have a very good understanding of what they are. The Globes entries are routine business news, and are not about him specifically. Of the 18 on the article, about 13 or 14 are related to his business. One of them is his wedding video, ref 4, and is non RS. Ref 18 is not even causily linked, it is some other person, who is a member of the society. Ref 9 is another video on vimeo, non RS. Ref 18 is the front page of the FIDF, doesn't mention him at all, so non RS. 14 is dead. 13 is dead. Ref 12 is about Viber being sold, and is a name drop only. Ref 10 doesnt detail anything about him.
The article completly breaks
WP:NOTADVOCATE. The practice in Wikipedia which has been consistent, is to delete, when the article is so extensively promotional that the promotionalism cannot be removed without extensive rewriting, when the work needing to be rewritten goes beyond the normal editing, compared with the usual removing of a sentence here or there. The tone of the article is clearly promotional, and a complete rewrite would be needed. The article was submitted by an undeclared paid editor.
scope_creep (
talk) 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
"The article was submitted by an undeclared paid editor." This is becoming truly a scourge on Wikipedia. Non-paid volunteers will be forced to devote more and more time in dealing with whatever garbage paid editors place on here; this means volunteers spending less time on Wikipedia articles, which in turn means a deterioration in the quality of Wikipedia. Professionals usually defeat amateurs; money usually defeats no-money. Just a general observation. -
The Gnome (
talk) 14:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets
WP:GNG, checks out in sources. I don't know what the
secret handshake society he runs is all about, but it's sourced so meh. As for "The practice in Wikipedia which has been consistent, is to delete...." - this is not correct.
WP:DP says "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it."
WP:BLPDEL says "Page deletion is normally a last resort" and is more geared for things like "Joe Blow is a fraudster, drug dealer and suspected member of
Britain First. He is believed to be behind a major heroin trafficking operation and organisation of plots of blow up properties owned by British Muslims. He has yet to be convicted and charged of any crime." (with citations to The Sun and the Daily Mirror)
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 23:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Just a small remark: You wrote that Shabtai "has run large corporations, he's rich, he invests, he donates, the press covers him." I'd think that out of those five qualifiers, only one, the latter, counts in Wikipedia as far as notability is concerned. The others might as well not exist. -
The Gnome (
talk) 13:53, 18 March 2018 (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.