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. Noting also that the nomination has been withdrawn. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Tal (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)

References are a mixture of trivial mentions and primary interview material - no indication of significant coverage on reliable, secondary sources suitable or sufficient for supporting a standalone biography. Searching for fresh sourcing doesn't turn over anything much better. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator: Upon close inspection, a handful of the sources on he.wiki do appear to present a critical mass of non-trivial coverage on the particularly boring topic of the subject moving from one channel to another. Parochial stuff, but it's there. Adding Template:Expand language is the best course. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not own your mistakes? You nominated a central media figure in Israel while sources were out there, did not bother to check sources that were just one click away, argued with literally everyone here who disagreed, and still belittle the WP:BLP you nominated at withdrawal? Why do I not see any self-reflection? gidonb (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Super major TV host. Has been anchoring shows on prime time Israeli TV for other thirty years. Abundant sources are available online. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If sources are abundant, perhaps you could provide an example of non-trivial coverage from a reliable, secondary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A cursory glance at the corresponding article on the Hebrew Wikipedia seems to provide ample coverage of suitable sources, albeit in Hebrew, which is not inconceivable given the subject's primary role within Israeli television. In the short term I would suggest adding Template:Expand language to the article and tagging it with the parallel Hebrew article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw a handful of sources that barely qualify as non-trivial coverage, and largely from a single outlet - "The Marker": [1][2][3] - these include just about the bare minimum of three paragraphs of non-primary material. There is a similar piece from "Walla!" [4] - again marginal more than compelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A major media figure with articles in 20 languages and a disruptive nomination. Speedy and snow also apply. gidonb (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't a celebrity blog. There are currently no non-trivial mentions present on en.wiki and only a handful of marginal sources on he.wiki - I can't speak to the sourcing standards on other language wikis. Not a single keep vote here seems to be interested in actually sourcing any of their statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying articles for notable professionals is not what makes us into a blog. It's what differentiates us from a blog! I see absolutely no traction for this nomination that is definitely out there between the more problematic nominations. I do see a lot of WP:BLUDGEONING from the nominator! gidonb (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the sources currently attached to this article are non-trivial, and I am the only one in this discussion who has even provided suggestions for what other (foreign language) sources might qualify as non-trivial. Discussing sourcing is not bludgeoning; it is fair enquiry. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hewiki article has 39 sources and that is little compared to what is possible to assemble. It has more articles under external links. I do see you argue under every single opinion here. This causes even more disruption than just the nomination. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 3 October 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.