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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Perednik

[edit]

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

It's badly written, and there are no good sources that are able to be used for the article. 123chess456 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 36 cites on GS. Not enough for WP:Prof#C1. Is there anything else? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, Considering 76,000 search results and his popularity. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GHits do not say anything about notability, substantial reliable sources do. And being popular also needs to be verifiable through reliable sources. (BTW: just changing your Google search to "Gustavo Perednik" reduces the number of GHits to 31,600... --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to say that Google Trends doesn't actually have enough search volume for Perednik to make a Google Trends graph, so he does not get that much search volume. Agreeing that the list of Google results do not mean whether somebody or something is notable or not. 123chess456 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks as though most of what is written about him is in languages other than English, such as Spanish and Hebrew. One source, from among those pointed to by the above Keep !voter, states: "Perednik is the author of 15 books on Jews and modernity." More on his background is here. An audio of him being interviewed on Arutz Sheva is here. He appears to be the main subject of this article here, and is interviewed here as well (in German?). In this book by Anatoly Shcharansky he is referred to as an "anti-semitism expert." There is much more for anyone who has the time and language proficiency, but even these look to point to notability so far. (And yes, the nom is correct -- it is poorly written and needs work .. but that is not a deletion rationale at AfD.)--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent research, Epeefleche. I think this may have changed the nominator's mind about deleting the article, am I right, 123chess456? Also, the article has been edited and now looks pretty good to me in terms of wiki standards. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the article still should be improved -- but that is not an AfD issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After Epeeleche's explanation and the minor improvements that the article has undergone by now, I think it's clear to everyone, including the article's deletion nominator, that we should keep the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me, I'm afraid. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You voted delete because you said the article doesn't meet WP:Prof#C1, but as Epeefleche showed, his influence and coverage is significant in other languages. Shalom11111 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many more times do I have to say that my view is unchanged? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Low keep unless I am wrong I read the lead and didn't find anything that would deserve to keep it. The gentleman studied, which is good. As I did. Anyway, I scrolled down to try to find something worth keeping the article. He wrote several books and an article. In such circumstances, the criteria is to have been published (but not to self publish). There is this editor "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" who published him and they seem to have a peer review board. If this is a sufficient criteria, we could keep it. I don't know what are the principles currently used to consider having been published is enough to consider an article could be kept but I think it could be enough. But we have the minimum and nothing more. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these issues are discussed in the WP:Prof guidelines. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 30 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.