Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amiram Goldblum


 * 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. There is a rough consensus here for deletion. Many explicitly cited the provisions of BLPDELETE as justification, and I cannot say the claim is unwarranted. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article seems to have been created for political reasons, and based on sources that do not meet WP:RS. Aside from those sources, Goldblum appears not to meet the notability criteria either as an activist or as a chemist. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. Amiram Goldblum is here as User:Rastiniak.  He doesn't consider himself to be a notable chemist, and would prefer that this article be deleted.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Goldblum has threatened to sue Wikipedia for discussing his SLAPP lawsuits. At this point, deletion may not be an answer.He has tried intimidating his critics through the courts and can offer no proof against his hiring a terrorist to work in his lab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YankeeYiddel (talk • contribs)
 * Response. We try to keep AfD discussions focused on Wikipedia policy.  Have you found any more reliable sources discussing this person in detail?  Is he notable for any reason other than a single hiring decision?  Wikipedia is not the news, but... did any significant newspapers cover the hiring decision that apparently is his sole claim to notability?  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. With a GS h-index of 16 and named chair he appears to pass at least two categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC).
 * CHAIR ?. The Named Chair criterion is frequently due to donation by families to a university for commemorating thier loved ones. Only chairs named after major scientists such as deceased Nobel Prize or major prize winners in the other fields (e.g. Math) and given at major universities should be considered as criteria Rastiniak (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)rastiniak
 * Yes, but being placed into a named chair position is usually considered an honor over and above simply being "professor". Some are certainly more honorable than others but any named chair is treated as an honor. --Lquilter (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The original version of this page was clearly an attack page created by several WP:SPAs that should have been speedied. It seems to have been created largely to lend credence to an attack website (which I won't link to here) which could then "quote wikipedia". While that has been rectified now (thank FisherQueen), given the borderline notability, I'm going to fall back on BLP which says that "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". I think that probably fits here. --Bachrach44 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete -- passes WP:PROF and GNG, but as an attractor of POV, negative contributors and per "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete" I don't see the encyclopedia benefiting from including this article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In an otherwise notable subject, attractors of POV & negative contributors are better handled through article protection. But "... where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus" seems potentially appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am usually sympathetic to requests from LPs to delete BLPs of marginal notability about themselves. In this case, due to the aggressive behavior of a person who implies that he is the subject (I am aware of the possibility of dirty tricks in this area) among other reasons, I am not. As several editors agree, the subject passes WP:Prof and the subject is involved in political activities, which adds to GNG. The BLP, in its present form, seems to be objective and inoffensive, and I see no reason to delete it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Given that the version of the page which Goldblum was responding to was an attack page, I think his anger was understandable. Did he act like a responsible wikipedian? No, he didn't. But that's because he wasn't a wikipedian. Most non-editors have probably never read a single wiki guideline or have any idea how things work behind the scenes. I don't see his "aggressive" initial behavior as something to hold against him, especially given the context that he was responding to something which he felt personally threatened by. --Bachrach44 (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and thanks for the thorough explanation. The article is now in an acceptable non-attack NPOV state. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Comment - Notability -- Subject appears notable. Named chair at major university likely passes WP:PROF.  He may also be generally notable for his activist activities as well (especially if he's notable enough to be drawing attacks).  Another editor mentioned this when-in-doubt guideline for deletion "... where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus".  If indeed the subject requested deletion of this article in its current state, then I would be okay with deleting since it's at least arguably borderline.  But (1) if the subject requested deletion of an earlier article that was attack-oriented, then we need some comment from subject about this version of the article. (And as I said elsewhere, protection is one of the answers to an article prone to POV attacks and vandalism.) AND (2) if it's just that the subject is expressing doubt about his own notability in chemistry, I respectfully think we can override him based on WP:PROF (if editor opinion is leading that way, of course).  --Lquilter (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no idea whether Goldblum is notable enough as a research chemist to merit a WP page. However, as a founder of and activist in Peace Now, he has a very high public profile, both in Israel and elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, he would indeed merit an article. But, since this article appears to have been created in order to attack the subject, and has attracted continued defamatory comments (probably by socks of a persistent vandal), and since a person credibly claiming to be the subject has requested deletion, this may be an occasion when BLP requirements oblige us to remove the article. If it remains, it should be protected in order to prevent socks and SPAs from vandalising it. RolandR (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject appears to notable as an academic as well as an activist. The article in its present form is a neutral, factual stub. It needs a couple of Wikipedians to watchlist the page to keep it neutral. The article is already semiprotected. There is one autoconfirmed user who keeps adding negative material despite being cautioned multiple times about NPOV; if he keeps this up a topicban might be warranted. These are problems that can be dealt with, and there is no reason to delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Several of the more egregious editors on this article have now been blocked as socks of serial abusive puppeteer Runtshit. It's likely that others will appear, so continuing vigilance will be required if the article is kept. RolandR (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2012 (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.