Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shel Israel


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 06:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Shel Israel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Instead of reasons why he shouldn't, tell me why he (Shel Israel) should have an article. (edit: didn't mean to make starting page minor edit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkadrink (talk • contribs) 2009/01/25 22:30:06
 * He edits his own article
 * Not-notable
 * Friend of blogger Robert Scoble who has friends and fanboys on the site puff up his article (typical blogcraft). This results in significant bias.
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Editing your own entry is discouraged but not prohibited and people puffing an article can be countered with protection. The only assertion that is left is that he is not notable, but isn't supported by any evidence. I'd counter it by saying that a scientific publication with John Wiley & Son (How Blogs are Changing the Way Businesses Talk with Customers) does in fact make notability likely. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; appears to be a bad-faith nomination, related to the editor's nominating of both the book this person wrote (Naked Conversations), and the co-author of that book (Robert Scoble).  Warren -talk- 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. LOTRrules   Talk   Contribs  20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Deletion appears to have been made in poor faith as part of Drinkadrink's general attack on Scoble-related material on WP. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, get off my back. It appears bloggers saturate these articles, puff them up, and protect them. My edits could easily be out of naivety or being new with Wikipedia. I made a few mistakes. Instead of focusing on subject at hand, you're picking on me for criticizing his associates actions on the site. --Drinkadrink (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you linking to a debate you've had with Warren? I'm not a blogger with any connection to this case, I don't know any of the other people involved, and I haven't used edit summaries to communicate - not that that's wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're deliberately misinterpreting a few missteps and distracting people from the task at hand. Again, Assume good faith. I posted that link because I had nothing wrong. You're using the proposer as a rationale to keep blogcruft. Do you even think and realize you may be mistaken before you accuse people? --Drinkadrink (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you have complete confidence in my good faith. Keep it civil, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough bad faith to go around here. Anyway, Israel helped create PowerPoint, as shown in my ref, and is a published author whose book has been written on several newspapers. You have not given a single (IMO) valid reason in your nomination why this should be deleted. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 01:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He's definitely notable. There are hundreds of news articles mentioning him, because of the books he published, his blog, etc. Gary King  ( talk ) 04:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of those links are related to his career as a publicist - I'd apply a scaling factor to the "hundreds" to allow for that. Orpheus (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but it's just a very quick search. There are many more articles that I found when searching in offline databases. Gary King  ( talk ) 05:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Who knows Changed !vote twice already. Good arguments for keeping (helped introduce PowerPoint, wrote book) and deleting (helped introduce PowerPoint, although he did apologise for it, book was web 2.0 fluff, appends "2.0" to waaaay too many things). Best of luck to the closing administrator. Orpheus (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2009 (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.