Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binyamin Goldman


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Binyamin Goldman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable person. No sources. Google hits on social networking sites or other people. DarkAudit (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I retrieved the link to one of the subject's roles mentioned in the article, but it amounted to one piece of user-submitted content. No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  02:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete probably A7 as the article doesn't really claim any notability, fails WP:BIO. Secret account 06:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreeing with most of the above, there's an additional item to note. The sources for the article don't actually discuss the subject of the article (Goldman) but other companies he's been involved in. Therefore, it does seem to fit under A7 fairly well; yet my concerns are heightened at the lack of reliable sources. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * onbvious and speedy delete article creator has only made his and its the same name. Though his talk page says other COI's. THe source is also to the website that this person wrote on.Lihaas (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - would have speedied this if I had seen it with a CSD tag, but don't want to subvert the process now it's here. No assertions of notability or reliable sources of any kind. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  12:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete, Snowball I think it's better to shorten proceedings when it's clear the target is utterly non-notable (and the creator has a conflict of interest as well) per WP:SNOWBALL. I think it's clear that this should have been speedy deleted rather than going to AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I erred on the side of caution with that CEO claim. That could be considered an "assertion of notability". DarkAudit (talk) 21:25, 7 June 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.