Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amotz Shemi


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Amotz Shemi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:BIO - might rate a mention on any article on the company he is the CEO of  (although it's not clear if that is notable either). Cameron Scott (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment For reasons that are not clear a lot of content has been removed from the article compared to its previous states. I am going to add back what seems helpful. That will give it a fairer chance of being kept, although I am not hopeful. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was removed because it was unsourced, if you plan to add information to that BLP article, make sure you are using reliable sources otherwise it will be removed again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added back material, including some that is unreferenced. I think we need to consider the maximum claims that are being made for his notability and then see if they stand up. I don't think it is fair to take an article that has claims of notability (even if they are unproven), remove the claims and then consider it for deletion based on the lack of claims to notability. We have to give articles a fair chance. That said, I do think this one is likely to be deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. This guy does not seem to pass any notability criteria as a businessman. He is claimed to be CEO of a load of companies that are not notable enough to have articles. He clearly does have some notability as an academic. He has published several papers and they do get citations (see Google Scholar). He gets a brief mention in The Scientific American Book of Astronomy but I am not convinced that it is enough to get him past WP:PROF. If we could dig up a bit more on him then he might just scrape over the line. If the article was to be kept, the non-notable business stuff would have to be de-emphasised. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done quite a lot of verification on the article. I wouldn't normally do this for an article that is probably doomed even if the verification succeeded but I wanted to discourage any more content removal. The good news is that everything checks out OK. The only thing I couldn't verify was the bit about his father being an artist. The bad news is that I didn't see anything to suggest that there is additional notability, so my "weak delete" stands. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable for business. Mostly sourced with web-flotsam. While he does have some cited publications, these largely appear to be under his advisor and they result in an h-index of only 6 (WoS). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete No references in the article demonstrate that this person has been the subject of independent coverage, as required for inclusion on wikipedia per WP:BIO. Smartse (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think he is below threshold both as a businessman and as an academic. Notability is measured by the max of one's accomplishments, not the sum. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn. -- Y not? 00:57, 5 September 2010 (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.