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. Unconvincing non-policy based Keep arguments. J04n(talk page) 13:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Dorfman

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Promotionally written violation of ONEEVENT DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Avi is a well-known pro-Israel activist and terror survivor whose story is very known across Israel. I do not understand your reason for deletion. I am not related to him in any way, I was one of the journalists who covered this story. I was just surprised he wasn't on there given the incredible amount of coverage he had received. He is known for:

his survival of the zikim terrorist attack after being deemed "mortally wounded" which made him known as the "#1 medical miracle in IDF history"
his being credited for having saved lives in the attack
His work with StandWithUs
Him coming out in an extremely controversial piece in the Algemeiner in 2016, accusing Hillel of allowing spies to come and interrogate him disguised as IDF soldiers.

Any suggestions on what I can do to make it not promotional-sounding? In the mean time, I added some information about the UCLA controversy, to make it less promotional and include the other side of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 17:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Please do not make those sorts of personal attacks~~ Personal attack now removed. The deletion rationale is referring to both WP:PROMO and WP:BLP1E policies. GAB^gab 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Highly promotional tone ("computer genius"... "A precocious child"... "good-looking, gregarious, kind-hearted and humble, always eager to help people where he was needed...") is one issue I noticed. Furthermore, besides some brief info on a lawsuit he filed, I see little coverage of him beyond his business dealings, and even this hardly discusses him as a person. As impressive his survival was, I would say we are probably in BLP1E territory. GAB^gab 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the parts you advised. Even though they were based on actual quotes from the article I cited. I have also mentioned his accusations against Hillel. I don't think the lawsuit was noteworthy, but the accusation made a big splash in the Jewish community and led to a huge can of worms opening about anti-Israel activity within Hillels, and is featured in the article I cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing convincing here aside from apparent sources for those vents but none of it suggests a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As it now stands, this article appears to conform to Wikipedia standards. The sources are cited, and the events in which he was involved are significant and of interest to many people. The material that sounded "promotional" has been edited. Quoting a nickname that was bestowed on him by others is not promotional. PA Math Prof (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this article should not be deleted as it's according with Wikipedia's standards, he's a well known pro-Israel activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickMtz97 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— PatrickMtz97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: He seems perfectly notable to me. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 01:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DGG is correct: this is a person noted only for one single event, no matter how much the author of the article tries to make him notable--in this article and in the references list. I've pruned two sources: one doesn't substantially discuss the subject, the other is not in a reliable source. Both were used to make the subject appear more important. And despite assertions to the contrary, the article remains promotional in tone. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: both the terror attack and his survival were quite newsworthy in Israel. The article can benefit from minor changes in language to make it compliant with WP:NPOV and I have made a few already. Drmikeh49 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, Drmikeh49, but that doesn't mean it's not still a case of BLP1E... Drmies (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would this be a case of BLP1E but not Gilad Shalit who is also known for one event (his capture as a POW and release)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cases are clearly not comparable, but, anyway, this discussion is about the article on Avi Dorfman, not any other article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:AlexandraMichelleMarkus, it's about broadness of coverage also, about lasting impact. For Dorfman, there doesn't seem to be any. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a news paper. We do not have articles on everyone who gets mentioned in news cycles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear case of someone whose only coverage in reliable sources is as the result of being caught up in one event. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Algemeiner is not a reliable source? Really? It's a Jewish newspaper with events that are of relative importance to the Jewish community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexandraMichelleMarkus (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the article in the Algemeiner is not independent, as required to contribute towards notability, being written by Dorfman himself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Avi Dorfman has overcome incredible odds. His story of recovery from such a severe injury is an inspiration to many others who find themselves facing similar challenges. His exposure of the problems at UCLA was also extremely important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarenJD01 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— KarenJD01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: He's well-known in Israel for his actions during the Zikim attack, and the other things described are notable. The article is sourced and meets normal Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minjitthemidget (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No doubt about it, he’s well known, his story is well known and of common interest. The article is well sourced and well written. It is only malicious attacks that seek to take it down. Brianoflondon (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to accuse anyone of malicious attacks then you need to provide evidence. I see no such attacks above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Parts of the article should be edited for style. Adamreinman (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His survival and recovery were major news in Israel and in the Jewish press internationally. The topic does meet notability Guidelines and is well sourced. Mr. Dorfman's work as an activist since recovery only adds to the fact that he is now well known. I agree that some further improvement to make it more neutral and encyclopedic in nature can and should be made but it should not be deleted. Caitlynmaire (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient references to establish notability.--Geewhiz (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:BLP1E, no single suitable redirect target. SST flyer 03:32, 10 June 2016 (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.