Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ely Sakhai (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ely Sakhai
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nominating on behalf of user:MaryK6754 who incorrectly placed an AfD notice on the article's talk page. No reason for deletion was offered, but she had previously attempted a prod (also incorrectly) with the rationale "Please delete post. The information on it is incorrect and it is causing undue emotional hardship to the individual in question." I am not personally supporting deletion for the moment. SpinningSpark 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TMGtalk 15:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Even if this page is deleted, the next top Google results for "Ely Sakhai" are: "Forging artwork - Art forger Ely Sakhai - NYMag," "Art Gallery Owner Pleads Guilty In Forgery Found by Coincidence ...," and "Foiling the Forgers with Noah Charney – Gauguin | Art | Agenda ...." It's hard to see how the Wikipedia page is responsible for undue emotional hardship. Pburka (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Although there are other articles about Ely Sakhai, there is still a problem about the notability. This article focuses entirely on negative aspects of the subject. Just like the previous discussion, we should be 100% confident that the subject is worthy of inclusion within an encyclopedia especially if it is affecting his private, personal life. I am sure if he is looking to have this removed at this day and age it is affecting his children and/or grandchildren who may want to gain a position in the art world without prejudice. We should also consider that many of the articles sourced are non-independent sources. I believe we should consider these legitimate arguments for deletion. I do not think this man has any intention of involving himself in crime again, especially since his charges are dated. I believe we should edit some of the negative information about himself or at least remove his first name so that the request can be partially filled. 50.101.66.147 (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC) — 50.101.66.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * One proper remedy would be to add information supported by WP:RS about this individual's more admirable activities, cf. : Martha Stewart.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To IP editor: some people are notable only for the crimes they committed. Sakhai is a convicted criminal and we need to reflect that in a dispassionate manner, relying solely on reliable sources. Unfortunately, the impact on his "children and/or grandchildren" is not Wikipedia's burden, but rather Sakhai's. "You know how the media are. They wait for a mistake and that's all you are. It happened to Hitler. No one ever talks about his paintings."  freshacconci  (✉) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is highly inappropriate to drag Hitler into this. TROUT editor who did so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Looks like that this is the person's attempt (or maybe his relatives) to remove his deeds from Wikipedia. possibly because the information hinders his current scheme we have yet to hear about. I don't think the arguments of the anon above hold water. - Skysmith (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not slander subject with unsupported accusation that he is involved in a "current scheme" of which you provide no evidence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This article's sources are not all verifiable. Additionally, these sources, for example, the way back machine https://web.archive.org/web/20150929004401/http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/30/1101577485488.html are not reputable for illustrating verifiable information. This website simply archives cached pages of websites, it does not audit whether the information is bias or factual. This page could be cleaned up a bit for this individual's sake. The nomination was made in good faith, and if someone is going to make an argument in ill-faith, that he is a routine criminal, then I would suggest to leave it in the hands of the judicial system, not Wikipedia. In response to the comments above - you have no evidence or information indicating that there is a current scheme doing on, therefore you should not be posting false accusations and information on this forum. 172.106.140.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)  — 172.106.140.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you claiming that the Internet Archive can't be trusted to make a faithful copy of an article published in The Age, a reputable and reliable newspaper? If so, I'd like to see some evidence. Impugning the integrity of the Internet Archive is a pretty serious charge. Pburka (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, to the IP editor: Sakhai was convicted; this is not spurious gossip about someone accused of a crime. The article reflects this and per WP:CRIMINAL there is no valid reason to not have an article.  freshacconci  (✉)
 * Keep:Certainly notable. No reason to delete. Recent significant criminal activity by a man still in his mid-60s. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep reliably sourced article about significant criminal fraud. SIGCOV in WP:RS from which a better article could be created exists, eg. : New York Magazine How to Make a Fake; Buy a mid-level Gauguin. Duplicate it. Slap the original papers on the copy. Sell both paintings to gullible collectors, while the art world looks the other way.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is notable as a criminal and art forger (however, not as an art dealer or gallery owner) and the article is well-sourced. Article subject's feelings are irrelevant if we are presenting well-sourced facts and the subject passes the threshold of being a public figure, which he does.  freshacconci  (✉) 18:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes subject's feelings are mostly irrelevant, however, if this article breaches the privacy of other innocent individuals then I have a hard time advocating for keeping the article up or unedited. Having the article come in question for the second time must have some merit.JennyL345 (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC) — JennyL345 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Taking this complaint seriously I read the 1st AfD. Editors argued cogently for keeping the article, which supports a "keep" decision here. I do feel empathy for the family, but that does not justify deleting information covered INDEPTH in serious periodicals an din a number of well-regarded books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Whose privacy do you feel it breaches? I don't think it mentions any other individuals except the artists whose works he forged. Pburka (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The User:JennyL345 account above has done nothing else than taken part of this discussion - Skysmith (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the anons and new accounts taking part have some connection to the subject. This doesn't invalidate their arguments. If they can demonstrate that there is some privacy violation I would seriously consider revising or deleting the article. But there's been no cogent argument presented. Pburka (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not affiliated with the subject. Yes, I haven't made a lot of contributions but I plan on contributing to other discussions after as well. There is no mention to his family in this article, however, it is most likely this would affect his children who are trying to live their own lives. There are articles online referencing that he has children and how he is trying to do right in the Jewish community. This Wikipedia page only harms his efforts to make a difference within the lives of the children in the Jewish community and the lives of his own children, regardless of their age. It even shows here that he is not active in the art world anymore and is now in real estate. This is not on the page. This is a privacy violation because Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. This page is overtly negative. This right to privacy should extend to Ely and his family.JennyL345 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If family members wish to disassociate themselves from a convicted felon, they're free to do so. Many people change their names for this reason. Wikipedia shouldn't delete a well sourced and apparently accurate page about a notable person simply because their conduct embarrasses their children. If you wish to add information about his new business ventures, please provide sources, and I'll be happy to make the additions. (Consider this my keep !vote). Pburka (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "I am not affiliated with the subject". Please, you are more likely to be taken seriously if you show some honesty. SpinningSpark 18:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per 's argument re: the discussion in the first AfD. Furthermore all the Delete votes come from SPA accounts, or SPA IP addresses. --Theredproject (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable art crime, as established by many sources. (See, not all IP votes are deletes).198.58.163.19 (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2018 (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.