From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to Carlton Tavern. I see a rough consensus to Redirect this article. I also am concerned with WP:BLP1E brought up and other BLP issues in this almost entirely negative article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ori Calif

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ori Calif (  | 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)

No independent, significant coverage about this person exists. Every source in the article is a passing mention and well below the standards that apply to Biographies of Living Persons. The first AfD had clear consensus and nothing has changed since then. Exemplo347 ( talk) 06:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Exemplo347 ( talk) 06:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Carlton Tavern, for which the subject has been in the news a decent amount over several years. (with perhaps a gentle merge of relevent information). — siro χ o 07:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Israel, and England. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Keep (and a comments/questions) I don't understand the delete rationale. Developer demolishes historic London pub in Architect's Journal, for example, it entirely about his dramatic and unusual activities, which prompted all sorts of other activities and reporting. Exemplo347, are you saying that Arhitect's Journal is not reliable? Or is it because the article is about his activities rather than him? Or because he technically did the activities via a limited company which he is the sole director of? I'm confused.
    Decision on illegally demolished pub myst "set a deterrent" in the Morning Advertiser (establish 1794) is also all about him.
    The first AFD happened in 2016. Calif has continued to make news since then. I can't see what the article looked like then, but back then it seemed like he was notable for one thing. The Magdala was a stub and Calif's involvement wasn't known to AFD participants. At that AFD Philafrenzy noted "Meets the GNG. Has coverage in a variety of secondary sources in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and extensive coverage in 2015" but most people noted a lack of detail and everything being about one pub. Both those factors are no longer true, so I challenge robustly that "nothing has changed since then"
    CT55555( talk) 11:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Reply This is extremely straightforward. None of the articles are actually about Ori Calif at all. Have a read through WP:GNG and you'll see what I mean. None of the sources in the article, and none that I've found, meet the standards.
    Exemplo347 ( talk) 11:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    It is not extremely straightforward. Calif demolished the pub. OK, technically he did it via a limited company (that he is the sole director of). Are you suggesting that the simple creation of a limited company makes the actions not his? Probably every notable business person in the UK actually performs their activities via a limited company, but we understand it is David Beckham playing football, not David Beckham Football Company Ltd. We're not removing articles about singers because technically it was Elton John Music Limited who released the album. CLTX and Calif are the same thing, as he is the sole director. The demolition of the pub, is completely his action. CT55555( talk) 11:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    It's clear you haven't read WP:GNG and I'm not prepared to explain it here when the link I provided explains it very coherently. A person does not inherit notability from a building they own (or one demolished by a company they're associated with). I'll step back from this discussion & let other editors respond now. Exemplo347 ( talk) 11:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I am familiar with our notability guidelines. I am not asking you to explain them. I am asking you to explain how you think they apply to this article.
    Calif effectively is CLTX. The articles are about his actions.
    Someone could argue that as the sole director of CLTX that the article should be about CLTX and then someone would come along and say that CLTX is WP:COMMONNAME best known by its sole director, Ori Calif. CT55555( talk) 11:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The reason I suggested a redirect is because the vast majority of news is about Carlton Tavern. There is indeed other coverage as well, but it's largely WP:ROUTINE coverage of a lawyer's and landowner's dealings. I you took away coverage specifically about Carlton Tavern there would be zero claim to notability, and with such slim coverage of the individual within the Carlton Tavern articles, I was concerned WP:BASIC was not met.
    Do you think subject can meet WP:BASIC, and if so what sources would you use to demonstrate it? — siro χ o 11:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    He is indeed mostly known about Carlton Tavern. And if it wasn't for the routine coverage of other stuff, I think we'd agree to redirect there. But that routine coverage is verifiable and enough to support an article. Routine coverage alone, obviously wouldn't.
    I think he passes WP:GNG. Of course that argument hinges on accepting (as clearly not everyone does) that coverage of his actions (pub demolition) is coverage of him. I say it is. We consider book reviews to justify articles about authors, we consider sports reporting about how a match went to justify articles about footballer and we should consider articles about the actions of a property developer to justify articles them. If you wanted to take a WP:BASIC approach, the first article in AJ is all about his actions. Or https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2016/05/31/Decision-on-illegally-demolished-pub-must-set-a-deterrent is also all about his actions. CT55555( talk) 11:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'd add this to the list https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000757762 CT55555( talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems like a WP:BLP1E to me. SportingFlyer T· C 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    For completely unrelated news coverage, see https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000757762 CT55555( talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's routine coverage of a lawsuit. SportingFlyer T· C 22:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine" as per WP:ROUTINE. This does not fall into that category. It's an event that generated news. It seems necessary at this point to accept that he is notable for more than one event. CT55555( talk) 22:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Carlton Tavern. Most of the article relates to a single event concerning the Carlton Tavern (agree with WP:BLP1E view); the subject's ownership of the Magdala is a diversion with only passing coverage in one article. Paul W ( talk) 11:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    That was maybe true before we identified the Hebrew sources, see https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000757762 for example CT55555( talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555( talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Carlton Tavern. There was some litigation between this lawyer and his client in Israel and his name was mentioned in the financial daily newspapers also in a few other cases. He is mentioned in Hebrew as "specializing" in international tax law, rather than "specialized". Specializing refers in Hebrew to someone's professional focus (or to training) versus specialized which indicates recognition as an authority. I conclude that this lawyer is, at least for now, a professional at work with some investments. Since alive, I advise against keeping. The bar (great word for a lawyer who invests in pubs!) for a redirect is definitely met! gidonb ( talk) 11:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you link to some of the articles in Hebrew please? Or say how his name appears in Hebrew? CT55555( talk) 12:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Sure. אורי כליף. I have added this name also to the article. gidonb ( talk) 12:11, 25 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ori_Calif_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1167849050"