Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahum Galmor


 * 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. Consensus appears to be that the subject is sufficiently notable to justify keeping and cleaning up the article. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nahum Galmor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Possible BLP violation TreacherousWays (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article was created by a new user in one edit. The article reads well, and is referenced, but it bothers me because it lists allgations of wrongdoing involving chemical weapons and corporate fraud. Unless a more experienced editor with a handle on BLP policy says it's a good safe article, I think that it should go. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is right to delete a well-sourced article for a few BLP violations, even if they are present. I did however delete the "chemical weapons" phrase you objected to based on a check of the source with help from Google translate.
 * I also don't think that a "new user with one edit" should be assumed to be doing anything wrong - there are many reasons why this can happen, most notably that an experienced IP editor was forced to create an account in order to start a new article. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree with your opinion. The article, I think, is disinterested. I don't think the person is prejudged in any way. On the contrary. The article reports about an actual prosecution and cites the pros and cons. I checked the references. They all are correct. 92.107.97.185 (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — 92.107.97.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The citations given in the non-controversy sections are enough to meet WP:N. The problematic controversy section does indeed need editing for NPOV, weasel words, etc. If that section were removed in its entirety there would be no reason to delete this article.  Them From  Space  23:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Most of the article's sources are not WP:RS but the allegations themselves are well documented:, , , (translation), etc. The subject appears to pass WP:BLP1E. — Rankiri (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news search shows mention of this guy for what he did to his shareholders.  D r e a m Focus  01:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting article. Relevant topic, particularly in the controversy section. Reliable sources. Neutral style. US Jon (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC) — US Jon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The person and his company are very well known in the Netherlands. This article reports impartially, based on articles that have been published in Europe and Israel.83.77.252.131 (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC) — 83.77.252.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I have read and respect the opinions placed above. Is the subject of the article a public figure? He may be well-known in the Netherlands, but I confess that I had never heard of him here in the U.S. He's being tied to a (minor?) political figure, Arcadi Gaydamak. Is this article part of a slander against a political figure? I would be comfortable with the suggestion made by Them  From  about removing the controversy section, but I understand why others might want to keep that section if Nahum Galmor is actually a well-known public figure. If I read the policy correctly, allegations are OK for public figures, but should be approached with care when dealing with private citizens. TreacherousWays (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep BLPs with foreign-language sources always have a certain potential for misstatement, and BLPs that cite a lot of articles about ties and allegations more so, but a quick search will turn up plenty of English-language sources naming both Arcadi Gaydamak and Nahum Galmor in the same story - few if any complimentary in nature. Wnt (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I hear what you're saying, Wnt, but I don't think that it justifies the existence of this article as it is currently written. The article on Nahum Galmor seems to exist solely to state that he has been indicted (not convicted) of a crime and that he is associated with Arcadi Gaydamak, who has also been indicted (not convicted) of a crime. That the article was created in one edit by a single-purpose account suggests that an agenda may be involved. As an article, it seems more like soapboxing and news than an encyclopedic article. If we were writing about a major political figure, prehaps the allegation would be worthy of a paragraph in a full biography, but as it stands "controversy" makes up half the article on a private citizen. TreacherousWays (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm rather new here, so I'm not sure if I can take part in this discussion. What I think: It is, after all, an official indictment by a democratic state. Arcadi Gaydamak is a well-known politician in Israel, he even ran for mayor in Jerusalem. The article states that Nahum Galmor denies the allegations and cites the Dutch Minister of Justice exonerating Nahum Galmor and his company (or did I get this wrong?). The presumption of innocence is not violated, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia63 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Welcome to Wikipedia, Julia63, and to the increasingly popular discussion of whether the article on Nahum Galmor should be deleted. Although an indictment from a democratic state is worthy of mention, the notabilty must be balanced against the right of a private individual to be, well, private. Wikipedia's policies on the Biographies of Living People differentiate between public figures and private figures. Although Arcadi Gaydamak is undeniably a public figure, Nahum Galmor is less easily defined as such. If Mr. Galmor is a notable person, why doesn't he have a full biography? Why is half of the article dedicated to allegations of illegal activity? This places undue weight on the topic, and (again) feels like it's part of a smear campaign against either Galmor or Gaydamak or both. As events unfold, the legal aspects will be resolved and there will be no need to make "proofs by assertion" that could be construed as slander. At the very least, this article ought to be userfied until there is more flesh on the bones and more balance to the allegations of wrongdoing other than It Wasn't Me. TreacherousWays (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * keep. I was about to punch keep on this but thought better of it considering the !votes from new accounts and and magic word "BLP" being invoked several times. My closing rationale would have been "keep. The consensus appears to be that any BLP problems can be addressed through the normal editing process." --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:57, 24 March 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.