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. There's a lot of off-topic argumentation here. If you have issues with deletion nominations being too frequent, that's a matter for the noticeboards: mentioning it here isn't productive. There is some substantive source analysis that has not been convincingly rebutted, and for both these reasons, the arguments to delete are considerably stronger. Userspace copy available on request, in the understanding that recreation will not happen without better sourcing than was presented here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ben-Shimon[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Amir Ben-Shimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V. scope_creepTalk 06:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those references you so gleefully expound as good source, incorrectly as per your usual, are just routine coverage. Not one of them is in-depth, i.e. significant for this BLP. They are no more than significant that the equivalent of a normal person being interviewed and getting a job. That is extent of it. So they not significant sources that are in-depth. scope_creepTalk 07:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I was gleeful about was someone sharing they had a baby. The rest doesn't hold any water either. There is no case for deleting. The intro seems unrelated to the subject. gidonb (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Cheers thanks for the congratulations. I'll be gleeful when we start sleeping at night again ;) --SuperJew (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And before your frame or completely false and disgusting personal attack ("incorrectly as per your usual") starts living a life of its own: the reason why the outcome of AfDs is usually the same as my opinion is that I thoroughly look for sources and at the contents of the article and these will lead to my conclusion, whatever it may be. Looking at my stats, the AfD outcomes delete, keep, merge, and redirect, have usually followed my opinion. When the outcome was speedy delete and keep, I usually suggested delete and keep respectively. Same outcome, less drama. Looking at your stats, for the outcomes keep, delete, speedy keep, speedy delete, merge, and redirect, you had usually suggested deleting. In fact, you support deleting in 93% of the cases. I support keeping in only 52% of the cases. In 33% of the cases, I supported deleting. In 6% and 7% of the cases respectively (i.e. near-equal), I supported merging or redirecting. In 1% each (i.e. equal), I supported speedy keep or speedy delete. My findings, including my keep here, are evidence-based! gidonb (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you've found sources why haven't you added them to the article? Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with "IF" I found sources? In my opinion, I refer to 4 VERY SPECIFIC sources that are visible to all. Didn't look much. The sources are just one click away. A fifth source is provided above. User:SuperJew actually did some research to find a fifth source. I understand that it is difficult to find sources in a foreign language. Nominations and opinions in AfDs, however, should build on WP:BEFORE, WP:NEXIST, and capacities, otherwise be discounted. Looking at the home article is the most basic action of a before. Nothing special!!! gidonb (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sources. It is almost a decade old, if there was sources available, they would be in there, but its never been updated. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then it'll run its course and be deleted. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are mixing up sources with references. Sources are "out there". There are sources. The proof is that you try to argue with one of the sources (!) below. You called sources references below. References are sources in an article. You call references sources above. The only reference (!) in this article supports data rather than notability. Per WP:N that doesn't matter as long as the sources exist. Your comments above and below suggest that you use the complete inverse of the WP terminology. From here probably the difficulty to develop a basic grasp of WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST and to get AFDs right. gidonb (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More