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. As there has been no assertation that the sources provided in this discussion (as opposed to those in the article) demonstrate reliable, independent, in-depth coverage, consensus is "keep" by strength of argument. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 14:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Naum Koen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

This article was drawn to my attention by an administrator on Hebrew Wikipedia, who told me that an article on the same subject had been deleted there, and described the English Wikipedia article as "completely marketing", and said that information about Koen's position as a businessman and about the companies he owns is "unclear". I therefore looked into it. The article was deleted at AfD over two years ago. It was restored and userfied at the request of an editor who siad that "it's a matter of time until someone like this person get more news coverage". That editor then returned the page to article space without, in my opinion, making substantial enough changes to justify recreating a deleted article. However, the following is what I found regarding the current version of the article.

There are 20 references, some of which are in Englsih, but many are in either Hebrew, which I don't know, or Russian, of which I have a rudimentary knowledge, but not enough to make a good assessment of the sources, so I was largely dependent on Google translation. Submitting substantial amounts of text to Google translate is slow and tedious, so I looked at only a sample of the cited references, but unless by very bad luck I chose a grossly unrepresentative sample, the results are clear enough. The article tells us that he is a businessman, and the founder of a Jewish community centre. There is precious little to be found about either of those aspects of his life in anything which could be regarded as a reliable independent source. Here is an indication of what is to be found in the cited sources.

• There are references which don't give significant coverage of Koen, such as a page at The Times Of Israel, which only briefly mentions him, and one on the web site forward.com, which as far as I can see doesn't even mention him at all.
• There are pages which are clearly not independent sources, such as belev-echad.org/en/about/, which is the "about us" page on the website of an organisation founded by Koen.
• There are pages such as one at passportnews.co.il and one at bloomberg.com, which are both reports relating to a business deal which Koen was hoping to do. They consist largely of quotes from Koen about his intended deal. It isn't clear to me whether it's an interview, write up of a press release, or what, but it is clear that it is essentially material by Koen, not about him. It is therefore neither substantial coverage of him nor an independent source. (Incidentally, I found from other sources that the business deal never went through, and the news was all about him saying' that he was going to do the deal.)
• There are references such as kp.ua/life/598561-v-sele-pod-kyevom-lva-derzhat-vmesto-sobaky, and ru.slovoidilo.ua/amp/2018/05/04/novost/obshhestvo/lev-simba-ostalsya-svoim-xozyainom-kozine-obeshhanie-nemirovskogo-zabrat-zhivotnoe, both of which refer to concerns expressed by various people about the conditions in which Koen keeps lions. They are mainly about the lions, and only briefly mention Koen, and by no stretch of the imagination is either of them substantial coverage of him.
• I did find just one reference which is independent coverage substantially about Koen. It is 13news.co.il/item/news/domestic/articles/questions-around-the-mediator-1175538/. It tells us about a law suit brought against him by his parents, another brought by his uncle, police concerns about him, etc. It is, however, only substantial coverage of a small part of his life, and on its own comes nowhere near to showing notability. There must be vast numbers of people who have been sued on one or more occasions, but who come nowhere near Wikipedia's notability standards. JBW ( talk) 22:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Nomination is lengthy but unconvincing. This is a well-known Israeli businessman with some affairs in his past. Easily meets the WP:GNG. Nominator provided one good source, here is another https://www.mako.co.il/tv-exposure/articles/Article-b030c49ce902771026.htm There is much more. gidonb ( talk) 00:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

1. Which is the one good source which I mentioned? I thought I had provided reasons why none of them is a good source.
2. Did you read the page you linked to? Can you tell me which bit of the Wikipedia article it supports? It supports none. It is all about people who question whether Koen is a "legitimate businessman", who claim that he has abandonned his daughter and her mother, and so on. It is all "someone has claimed that..." from start to finish. It does not support any of the article's existing content, and it is questionable whether it could ever be a suitable source for supporting anything in a BLP.
3. Saying "There is much more" without telling us what and where is of no value at all, and the administrator who closes this discussion should give it no weight at all. Sources which are not verifiable are of no use; otherwise anyone could say "I've seen lots of good sources", and we would have no way of knowing whether that was true. This is essentially similar to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources. JBW ( talk) 20:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

None of that holds any water. As I said before your intro is way too long and unconvincing. Now you're WP:BLUDGEONING under all the opinions that disagree with the nomination. That is thus far... EVERYONE! This is bad practice and behavior you will need to work on. My claim is NOT as you suggest but all and only WP:NEXIST, i.e. the essential and correct way to approach notability. Articles that establish the notability of this person include: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Some of these articles also exist in English. You are mixing up the establishment of notability with referencing. Referencing is NOT the purpose of a notability discussion. It is an art that takes place in the article space and can be discussed on an article's talk page. References can and usually will include sources that do not count toward notability. Likewise it is irrelevant if every item in an article will be used in ours. These are just two VERY different processes! gidonb ( talk) 03:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep - I'm assuming good faith but the opening line of this nomination makes me super-leery. Beyond that, 1. We have no idea what standards might have been applied elsewhere, including other-language Wikipedias, and they might well have set a higher bar for inclusion. 2. The quality of the article is rarely a justification for deletion; the notability of the subject is the issue, not the quality of the article about them. It would seem the subject meets WP:GNG. Any reason to think otherwise? I will say that the nominator's commitment to WP:BEFORE is commendable and their extensive nomination statement is commendable also, which is why I remain solidly in the AGF camp on this one. But I don't think it should be deleted. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 10:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Stalwart111: I am puzzled by your statement that you are assuming good faith. You wouldn't say that unless there were some reason why my good faith might be doubted. Can you please tell me what about what I have said causes the question of whether I am acting in good faith to arise?

Sorry, I evidently failed to make my meaning clear. Not for a moment did I intend my comments about what happened on Hebrew Wikipedia to be a reason for deletion here. Hebrew Wikipedia has very different standards from English Wikipedia, including the fact that their deletion discussions are not discussions at all, but just votes, and I wouldn't rely on them at all. I just thought that knowing that I had been led to investigate the article by an administrator from another Wikipedia who had concerns about the article might be of interest, but probably I was wrong and it would have been better to leave that out,

I don't understand your point number 2. My argument was entirely about the quality of the sources, not the "quality of the article"; the quality of sources is precisely what determines "the notability of the subject".

The reasons you give for keeping are "It would seem the subject meets WP:GNG" and "I don't think it should be deleted". You give no justification or evidence for those statements at all. Simply stating that a topic is notable, without providing sources to substantiate that claim, is of no value. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just notable/Just not notable. JBW ( talk) 20:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC) reply

"This article was drawn to my attention by an administrator on Hebrew Wikipedia" ...who is unable to edit the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? And needed someone to nominate the article for deletion? ...who told me that an article on the same subject had been deleted there ...which is irrelevant, as you acknowledge. ...and described the English Wikipedia article as "completely marketing", and said that information about Koen's position as a businessman and about the companies he owns is "unclear" ...which are very much fixable problems and is about the quality of the article, not the quality of the sources. I believe you should have left those bits out, but have no reason to think you weren't acting in good faith when you included them, and you acknowledge you should have left those bits out anyway. So let's leave that at that.

Expressing an opinion about whether or not we think an article should be deleted is exactly why we're here at AFD, so I'm not sure why my expressing an opinion is confusing. But to make it clearer; "being unconvinced by the nomination statement, and taking into account the sources included in the article and highlighted by other editors here, I have come to the conclusion that the subject meets our inclusion criteria and the article should not be deleted". If other editors disagree, they will express their opinion thusly and consensus will form contrary to my view (which is what is weighed up by the closer). St★lwart ¹¹¹ 00:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I thought I'd made this clear, but evidently I failed to do so. The stuff about the Hebrew administrator is irrelevant. I regret having mentioned it. As for saying "And needed someone to nominate the article for deletion?", linking to "meatpuppetry", that is absurd. I never suggested that the nomination was anything other than my own decision, based on my own assessment of the article and its subject. I never dreamt that my casual mention of how I came to look into it would be made such a big deal, or that what I said would be so misinterpreted. JBW ( talk) 12:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Right, and it seemed strange. And the question I posed was rhetorical; it wasn't an accusation. I was trying to give an insight into my confusion at what was being presented. But you were equally as confused by my confusion. As I said, let's leave that at that. Just the fact that you're engaging in good faith discussion is more than enough to allay any initial concerns, and then you struck that bit anyway. No hard feelings, I hope. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 12:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. If we ignore the totally irrelevant stuff, such as complaints about the length of the nomination (which may be valid or not, but which have no bearing on whether the file should be deleted), ad hominem comments about the nominator (e.g. innuendo about lack of good faith without any explanation, and the ridiculous accusation of meatpuppetry) and "I just think it's notable" type comments, we are left with the aources in the article us the additional links given above. They aren't reliable independent sources giving substantial coverage of what the article is about. The king of the sun ( talk) 08:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Again, not an accusation; more an explanation of what made me leery. For the record, a lot of "what the article is about" should probably go, but that's a matter of editing. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 12:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I checked all the sources and found that 3 of them may qualify for notability: Bloomberg, KP.UA and zman. However, Bloomberg and KP are only talking about future plans. I don't think that people get notable for making plans. Assuming that zman is independent, there is only one good source left. Of course, all those articles about the subject's pet-lion are too local. The others are too short, too promo or not focused on the subject. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 00:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment I provided 5 long, independent, and in-depth sources in Hebrew, all signed by respectable journalists in important Israeli media. We do not have a rule against sources in Hebrew or other languages. NONE of these sources is promotional. On the contrary. They are critical and independent of the subject. I suggest that both users above take a deeper look at the sources and follow our policies. Per WP:NEXIST, this person easily passes the WP:GNG. Opinions solely based on references in the article, that dodge points made by others in this discussion, should be discounted for a lack of depth and inconsistency with policies and guidelines. There is no value to "I just think this is not notable" arguments in AfD discussions, after the references establing the notability of a subject were provided. gidonb ( talk) 11:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Did I say that your 5 sources are promotional? Did I say that sources in Hebrew are less valuable than sources in English? Actually I did mention that one of your source in Hebrew is good. It's good because it really covers the subject in depth. Sorry, but the other sources are too shallow, IMO. They are about the subject's business, friends, legal issues, pets and so on. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 19:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply

My writing was a comment, not a direct reaction, after several contributions beforehand and includes also other important points. Sure, if you strip in-depth, independent, and verifiable sources off their biographic content, you could be left with nothing. Depends only on how extreme you want to take such a cancel process. There is no clear basis in our policies and guidelines, however, for doing this. Opinions that mold a virtual reality into being, instead of following the facts and policies, should not be taken all that serious. These only confirm that one has placed a "I just think this is not notable" argument. gidonb ( talk) 00:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply

That's certainly true. In fact, the notability criteria for living people are too extreme, IMO. Anyway, my vote is a weak keep. Dr.KBAHT ( talk) 14:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep per gidonb. I'm not seeing a well argued deletion rationale in this discussion from the nominator or the delete voters. In looking at the sources myself, many of them appear to be respected independent publications with named authors. While some of the articles are about future projects or are only tangentially connected to the subject and don't count as RS, others are about past achievements and Naum Koen is the primary subject (such as those highlighted by gidonb above). Ultimately the subject appears to meet WP:GNG with multiple independent sources containing in depth coverage. Unless the delete voters are able to provide a detailed source analysis as to why they think this isn't the case, I don't see a good policy based reason to delete. 4meter4 ( talk) 03:04, 15 September 2021 (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.