Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviad Meitar


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Aviad Meitar

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

CSD7 template removed by page creator. Article lacks any reliable and third party sources (WP:RS). Notability is not asserted under WP:NRVE and fails at WP:FAILN. Searches have not turned up other RS within the meaning of Wikipedia policy. The subject may in fact be notable, but it needs proving. Kudpung (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I found three articles from Romanian newspapers that were entirely about him. Please try some BEFORE and click Google News, they're all right there. Silver  seren C 21:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, sub-notable, being a CEO is not in itself enough for notability. The book is published by Booksurge, the print-on-demand wing of Amazon. Hairhorn (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, how about the fact that he, essentially, brought Pepsi to Romania? And it doesn't matter how the book was printed, what matters is that it was covered by reliable secondary sources, as was the subject himself, as shown by the references. He easily passes notability standards. Silver  seren C 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * keep Aviad Meitar isn't like any CEO's. There are several good reasons to maintain this article. We are talking about a man who brought one of the most important companies to the top level, in Romania, in a communist country, with all the challenges. His book just came out and will have a lot of publicity in the next coming months. He already won an award of the best business book of the year. (http://www.books-and-authors.net/BooksoftheYear2010.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella7272 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete So he brought Pepsi to Romania? Big deal. I'd have been more impressed if he'd taken Silver Spring's Dandelion & Burdock to the top there. I find a lot of promotion for a book that is, essentially, self-published. If the book achieves great notice outside the promotional whirl, then an article may (note 'may') be justified. Not until. See WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage of the book doesn't matter, what does matter is that there are multiple reliable sources that are talking about the subject, the person, not the book. The person is notable, even if the book may not be (but this article is not about the book). Please explain to me how the sources do not satisfy notability requirements. Silver  seren C 21:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the refs in the entry, I don't see it. Only one is an article article about him, the others are a short piece about the book and a press release about the book. Still fails the notability criteria. Hairhorn (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Check again, please. Silver  seren C 19:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Current sources used in the article include the subject's own website, a blog, and three websites that are commenting on his self-published book. While other entities may have standards of coverage that recognize self-published sources, the criteria of Wikipedia to support notability prevail in this forum. Accordingly, the subject lacks notability and the article should be deleted. Cindamuse (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please check again, there are sources that establish notability now. Silver  seren C 19:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have added further references to the article. The major one to note would be this. Also, I would ask those voting delete to remember WP:INHERITED and WP:NBOOKS, which states that the author of a notable book does receive notability from it, as a principle work made directly by the author. And the number of reliable sources talking about the book (regardless of it being self-published), as the self-published section] on NBOOKS does not say that a self-published book is immediately non-notable, as there are exceptions, shows that the books seems to be notable. And sources that make it reach the GNG would show it to be an exception. Silver  seren C 19:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.wall-street.ro is not a "major" source. I don't see any mass tonnage of sources making this book particulary notable, one of the refs given is a press release. Romanian wikipedia does not have an entry on this person. Hairhorn (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor does the Hebrew Wikipedia - . Peridon (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I have stated above that the article should be deleted due to lack of notability, the claim that the article is not appropriate based on presence or lack thereof in foreign language Wikipedias is an argument to be avoided. See ATA. Cindamuse (talk)
 * I don't understand. Are you saying that Wall-Street.ro is not a reliable source? Because it looks completely reliable to me. I said it was major because it was an interview with him that also has extended information about his history. Combined with the other interview and the other references I found, plus the apparent notability of his book, he passes the GNG easily. Silver  seren C 23:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  09:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep He seems to be notable enough by the sources given. Wolfview (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - The sources in the article establish notability.  GB  fan  14:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable and sufficient sourcing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stella7272 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 27 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.