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. @pple (☞ talk) 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ely Sakhai[edit]

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

This is a borderline case that deserves some discussion. This article is about an art dealer known only because of his involvement with forgery. He was reported on a bit due to the sensationalist nature of the crime and this story made big news in the art world. On the other hand, the article and his claim to fame are almost entirely negative and his enduring notability is likely to be scant.

A paid editing sockpuppet tried to have this deleted some time back, so its safe to say that someone connected to the article doesn't want it up. Due to the negative nature of the material I think we should consider the request. I can understand the argument for the subject's notability but in my opinion it isn't as strong as the spirit of WP:BLP1E combined with the subject's wishes. Them From Space 03:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I make this recommendation with full understanding that the nomination was made in good faith, that the article has significant problems, and that there are some legitimate arguments in favor of deleting. I think that the arguments for keeping the article outweigh those in favor of deleting. If we consider his arrest for art forgery "one event" then we should perhaps delete. But an article in the New York Times called Art Gallery Owner Pleads Guilty In Forgery Found by Coincidence confirms that he he pled guilty to felony charges, that his career of art forgery lasted at least 15 years, and that he helped forge paintings supposedly by Paul Gauguin, Marc Chagall, Paul Klee, Amedeo Modigliani and Pierre-Auguste Renoir, and sold them on the international art market. There is extensive coverage of these crimes in reliable sources. To me, this is far more than "one event". As for the subject's wishes, we can only be sure of them if we have a formal request through OTRS. We do not usually keep articles about routine criminals. I do not think that the long series of crimes this man committed are routine, and that keeping and improving this article will also help improve our overall coverage of Art forgery, a very important topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yeah, agree entirely that the nomination is fair enough. That said, I also agree with Cullen that this is a notable subject with a horrifically badly written article. There are plenty of significant art forgery cases covered on WP and this was a big one; international, multimillion-dollar and multi-genre. I'll have a look at cleaning it up a bit. Glad some attention has been drawn to it, if nothing else. Stalwart111 06:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at cleaning it up a bit; fixing the references and re-framing some of the claims with more NPOV language. I wonder if that goes some way toward addressing the nominator's concerns? Stalwart111 06:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much more organized and it reads better. But I still have issues with the subject's notability. When an article focuses entirely on negative aspects of the subject we should be 100% confident that the subject is worthy of inclusion within an encyclopedia. Our bar for notability is pretty low, and I can live with that, but I feel that our bar for infamy should be a little bit higher, just to dot our I's and cross our T's. Them From Space 15:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not unfair. BLP1E is one thing but the case itself gained international attention and has subsequently received ongoing coverage in feature newspaper stories and books (I've added some of both to the article). Though connected to the case, his business deals in Australia have also gained attention (I've included details in the article). With BLP and NPOV in mind, I've also added some of his pre- and post-charge denials and his personal commentary regarding the eventual guilty plea. Though they are based on non-independent sources (press releases published by his company) I have also added some details about his post-conviction business ventures. Stalwart111 02:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2014 (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.