Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Yemini (2nd nomination)

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. Roughly 2:1 for deletion, with no clear advantage for either side in terms of strength of argument, is good enough for me as a rough consensus for deletion. Sandstein 18:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Yemini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This was deleted 3m ago as failing POLITICIAN and was recreated via AFC without a discussion. I'm therefore relisting to allow a proper discussion of whether this now passes muster. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• requesting speedy procedural close Either you think it needs deleting or you don't. If you are unsure then don't nominate it for deletion but use the talk page on the article. If you are the nominator at AFD the onus in on you to show why an article should be deleted, not submit pages for others to discuss Egaoblai (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the previous AFD and am acting in an administrative capacity to ensure that existing consensus is not ignored. The cway to do that is to review consensus. Doing this is not an uncommon administrative action.Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of you being an admin or not, by posting this page here you've started a de facto AFD discussion. Pages that are deleted are made better and re-created all the time, this one has clearly been improved since it was deleted (look at the page history) and approved by an AFC reviewer. If you can't find anything wrong with the page then this isn't an appropriate place to post about it. Egaoblai (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I listed it because I think it doesn’t pass muster per the arguments in the recent AFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do you think it doesn't pass? you need to be specific here. Otherwise this nomination will be closed as procedural Egaoblai (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @MatthewVanitas: for comments on why this went through AFC, any difference from this and then.? --Quek157 (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Nothing substantially different has been changed in the intervening 3 months. If anything, there is even less of a case for notability compared to the previous attempt. At best, one could say this personality is a political agitator who has had some community issues. Blackmane (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick Google search shows that he has received sustained standard of notability for a reasonable period of time WP:SUSTAINED. Knobbly (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: while the article isn't ideal, a quick perusal of GoogleNews shows a good body of coverage in Australian news and Jewish publications. Clearly makes Notability. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass wp:notability just fine, esp. in Australian media outlets. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BIO is not met, and nor is WP:NOTNEWS. The whole article is a pretty breathless attempt to build up this person as being somehow noteworthy, and it's not convincing. As but one example, the claim that "In 2016, Yemini made headlines for creating an online petition that demanded the legalization of pepper spray" is referenced to an obscure local newspaper! Many of the other claims in the article are referenced to obscure sources or primary sources. This person has been in the media a few times, but I don't think this all rises to being worth an encyclopedia article. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most important article on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.0.50 (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable enough as an activist, media exhibitionist, whatever, as several people said last time. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But is simply being noticed by the media enough for a WP article? I somehow doubt it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject being notable mostly in marginal and fringe media, while in a few (too few) others only in passing and condemnation. A case of WP:TOOSOON more than anything else, because subject's a cinch for future notoriety. Just not yet. -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete he is not yet notable, but even more important, this is a highly promotional article, with not enough substance to rewrite. That makes it a candidateiis for speedy deletion as promotional G11, and I'm so marking it. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined DDG's speedy nomination here. Let's continue this discussion. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - being 'Facebook famous' does not make one notable. -- Longhair\^talk 06:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE -- The guy is a twitter bombing, facebook provocateur, self promoting attention seeking propagandist : why oh why does he have his own WIKI page? Isn't wiki worth more than this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.145.210.246 (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL and there's nothing better. WP:TOOSOON (or maybe never) per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2018 (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.