Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effi Wizen


 * 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   keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Effi Wizen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO. red dog six (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems like should be notable, has done a lot of things and obvious talent. But there are no independent sources about Effi Wizen, such as biographical pieces in magazines and newspapers. This source for example says (in translation):
 * "On Tuesday, the Polo Paulinia opened an animation studio 3D, billed as the largest and best equipped in Latin America. Based on the model of Industrial Light and Magic of George Lucas.. Under the auspices of the Israeli Effi Wizen.."
 * Impressive, but not a source about Wizen. Same problem with the other sources, they mention him in the course of his job duties, but nothing specifically about Wizen of significance. Many of the claims of significance are unsupported: "Wizen created one of the first film digital compositing systems" is unsupported; "one of the first specialists in Computer Animation and Visual Effects" is unsupported; "he founded the post production house" is unsupported; "Wizen created the consortium" is unsupported. Whoever wrote this must be using sources we don't have access to, or has personal knowledge and connection to the topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow why the above quote you helpfully focus us on is in your view not a source about Wizen. It refers to him, by name -- to the extent that it does so it is about him.  Certainly, it is not primarily about him.  But while articles solely about a person are excellent indicia of notability, they are not a sine qua non.  As long as we have sufficient other indicia.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a fair call. I don't think someone is notable for a job position (with some exceptions). Simply being a CEO or entrepreneur or whatever his title is, and a few tangential mentions. If it's a CREATIVE position we would judge based on works. MichaelQSchmidt made a case for that below after I !voted; my sense was this is a close case and that since the article contains what might be WP:PUFF by someone who might be COI I leaned to the delete; I also wondered at the contradiction of the many big claims made in the article vs. so few films, and of those not great success, and so few professional awards and honors. And no supporting evidence of the claims made. So all these concerns I went with D. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. We do across our notability guidelines, to your point, certainly in a great number of cases (though that is not the issue here) view someone as notable based on their having certain positions -- whether the President of a country, or Dean of a university, or player in a highest level professional sports league. But, not the issue here, as I said.  Also, even if we don't have an article primarily about a person, they meet our criteria if we have sufficient coverage, with sufficient indicia of notability.  Issues of puffery and COI, while ones that I am also as a general matter sensitive to, are ones best addressed by tagging and normal editing -- AfD is not for cleanup, and an article of an otherwise notable person should not be deleted because of such issues (rather, they should be addressed as indicated). As to why there isn't greater coverage unearthed, one possibility that jumps out at me is that those articles that we do have are largely in Portugese and German (where google coverage is lesser than in English) -- and we don't even have his name in Hebrew, to do a search in his native language.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, aware of those exceptional cases but there is nothing for business people in the notability guidelines. Believe me I wish there was because so many times I have seen business people deleted who I thought were notable. The puffery issues can be cleaned up but they made me distrust some of the claims being made that would otherwise make this person notable. It is possible the sources are in foreign languages but I searched *.br (eg. "Effi Wizen" site:.br) *.il and *.de before making my vote. Did not search his Hebrew name. Regards. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep delete because even though sources verifying his works do not give enough detail about his life to support a decent article. Even his RTS Television Awards nomination did not itself receive notice. Even though not a violation of WP:BIO, we can allow it back once this person receives some media attention for who is is and not for what he has done (though it would seem that they are intricately inter-related). However, under WP:ANYBIO the nomination could be enough to allow this to remains and grow over time and through regular editing... and WP:CREATIVE #1 & #2 it might be seen that his works themselves have received enough attention (mostly in non-English sources) to meet that SNG, which is why my delete stance is "weak".  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Upped to weak keep above.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Soures such as the Hollywood Reporter (The world's hottest production facilities) October 14, 2010
 * note that he was then the head of visual effects for Estudios Quanta, "a major Sao Paulo- based regional film industry player". There are some foreign language sources such as this one as well. His entrepreneurial efforst and his work with film companies has in fact been covered. I think the subject satisfies our notability guideline. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per the above keeps and comments.  Not the strongest notability I've seen at AfD, but passes the bar.  Sufficient coverage/accomplishments, as reflected in sources from around the world in multiple languages.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2013 (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.