Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shmuel Yerushalmi (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 delete.  Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shmuel Yerushalmi
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources for notability, and no sources for many biographical details. Most of the sources that cited are unacceptable as they are free-access sites - groups.yahoo.com, topica.com, www.nowpublic.com. stage.co.il is the Israeli MySpace - anyone can open an "artist page" there. The only reliable sources here are from Haaretz and SikurMemukad.co.il. Haaretz by itself is a respectable newspaper, but not everyone who is mentioned once in a respectable newspaper should have an article. I haven't seen the SikurMemukad.co.il website before; it doesn't seem to be unreliable, but the article itself admits that all that this site had about this man is one interview. It is also worth mentioning that this article was deleted and salted in the Hebrew Wikipedia after multiple attempts at re-creation (Vote for deletion; Salted title - שמואל ירושלמי). Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - many self-published writers or poets on the internet, some of whom are more notable, like Shaul Reznik. It should be noted that we Wikipedians are not robots and should not assess notability simply based on the existence of an article or two from X newspaper about a person - we should look at the overall coverage he has received, and in this case, it's certainly lacking. Also, none of the subject's works seem to be phenomenal and there doesn't seem to be any major independent coverage of his works. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - many self-published writers or poets on the internet, some of whom are more notable, like Shaul Reznik. It should be noted that we Wikipedians are not robots and should not assess notability simply based on the existence of an article or two from X newspaper about a person - we should look at the overall coverage he has received, and in this case, it's certainly lacking. Also, none of the subject's works seem to be phenomenal and there doesn't seem to be any major independent coverage of his works. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Vancarlimospacecraft and WP:WING Avi (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Tali Fahima. This strikes me as a bit of a vanity article and per nom the sources appear to be pretty weak. --Deadly&forall;ssassin 10:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the Haaretz article, which is the only reliable source that is not self published, describes him as a fringe poet. Also, this article appears in several languages, with similar structure. I'm not fluent in all of those languages, but I suspect auto-translation - and thus self promotion. The bit about Tali Fahima can be added into that article. -- Nudve (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP and WP:BIO require stringent adherence to sourcing requirements regarding controversial statements about people, including statements that people are saying and doing controversial things. Right now there are simply no reliable sources to substantiate most of this article, or which give this individual substantial coverage. WP:BLP removes some of the flexibility for borderline cases that exists for articles on other subjects. Current sourcing just doesn't cut it with WP:BLP. We have to deal with the fact that it's not all that hard for somebody to create a hoax and set up myspace pages etc. as a joke or even in order to libel someone. WP:BLP demands reliable sources that establish basic facts about a controversial individual for a reason. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2008 (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.