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. Although paid editors are problematic, if the sources support inclusion and consensus here is that they do, the page should be kept. J04n(talk page) 13:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Shabtai[edit]

Benny Shabtai (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)

Highly promotional. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article states facts and brings plenty of reliable sources to back them up. Successful businessman. No clear reason for deletion--Geewhiz (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying, if somebody is successful businessmen, they can get an article. I run a very successful software consultancy, so I'm good for an article, is that your rationale. scope_creep (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a list of 10 or so articles in reliable sources where your successes are documented and I will write the article for you.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, if he does have sufficient coverage it will stay, I guess. See what happens. scope_creep (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject is simply a businessman with a social life and some philanthropy, and a few sources confirm this; the rest are lame irrelevancies. It does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO and smells of WP:PROMO. (I'm not aware of criteria specifically for businessmen.) -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but not everyone gets write-ups in Forbes, Globes and Haaretz. Not everyone sells companies for $500 million. Not everyone has societies at Yale named for them. By the way, if you are really hot on deleting articles, there are zillions of them about space creatures and loads of one-line articles about people who play golf in their free time and cartoon characters that are crying for attention.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References 10, and 11 are dead. Both of the subjects on the sources for his companies, specifically IPO's. Doing a search the Viber sell off in Globes, mentiones the subject by name, the second one is similar name mention for the IPO. The Forbes is low quality, Richest in the country article Clickbait article. What is there is click and IPO's. scope_creep (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Haaretz news article reads like a puff piece, written by a member of his own Yale society. scope_creep (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessments of Haaretz and Forbes are your own subjective view. They are reliable sources on Wikipedia. As I mentioned above, there is much to do to improve this encyclopedia and going around deleting articles about people who have more money than you is a waste of everyone's time--Geewhiz (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geewhiz, you just made a totally irrelevant remark that constitutes a personal attack against a fellow contributor. Wikipedia does not care whether a person has made lots of money or not; the criteria for having an article about a person in Wikipedia do not include "size of fortune". You must be thinking of something else entirely. And you have no right (in fact, you are in breach of your obligations to be be civil and to assume good faith of other editors) to be accusing others of having some kind of an agenda here. This is more serious than the question about having an article up about someone. Do you realize this? -The Gnome (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not realize this. The remarks - like yours below - were just a "general observation." If you took them personally, please forgive me. At the same time, I think your tone in working to delete this article is overly aggressive. Still, I am always glad to know that there are people who take Wikipedia seriously.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say my tone is "aggressive" but aggressive against whom? I'm not attacking anyone, nor anyone's ideas. I merely express my views. (See full text of my opinion above.) I have no agenda here. You should refrain from presuming "agendas", especially without anything on which to base them, e.g. an editor's record of "aggressiveness" or an "agenda". This is honest, friendly advice but also Wikipedia policy. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geewhiz I have no "hotness" for deleting articles from Wikipedia. I simply offer a small assistance in keeping article creation within the rules of the house. As to your argument about "zillions" of other unworthy articles (is that more than fifteen?), then, by all means, point them out here, as Articles for Deletion. Wikipedia does not have notability guidelines specifically for businessmen or entrepreneurs. Therefore, the general notability rules about living persons apply. The article's subject might be extremely successful and rich, but seemingly does not qualify for an article. That's all there is to it, as far as I'm concerned. Take care. -The Gnome (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I concur with Geewhiz, Shabtai is definitely notable figure and the sources are more than sufficient. Tzahy (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reply to Geewhiz. Having already went to Reliable Source noticeboard to ask about Forbes recently, I have a very good understanding of what they are. The Globes entries are routine business news, and are not about him specifically. Of the 18 on the article, about 13 or 14 are related to his business. One of them is his wedding video, ref 4, and is non RS. Ref 18 is not even causily linked, it is some other person, who is a member of the society. Ref 9 is another video on vimeo, non RS. Ref 18 is the front page of the FIDF, doesn't mention him at all, so non RS. 14 is dead. 13 is dead. Ref 12 is about Viber being sold, and is a name drop only. Ref 10 doesnt detail anything about him.

The article completly breaks WP:NOTADVOCATE. The practice in Wikipedia which has been consistent, is to delete, when the article is so extensively promotional that the promotionalism cannot be removed without extensive rewriting, when the work needing to be rewritten goes beyond the normal editing, compared with the usual removing of a sentence here or there. The tone of the article is clearly promotional, and a complete rewrite would be needed. The article was submitted by an undeclared paid editor. scope_creep (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The article was submitted by an undeclared paid editor." This is becoming truly a scourge on Wikipedia. Non-paid volunteers will be forced to devote more and more time in dealing with whatever garbage paid editors place on here; this means volunteers spending less time on Wikipedia articles, which in turn means a deterioration in the quality of Wikipedia. Professionals usually defeat amateurs; money usually defeats no-money. Just a general observation. -The Gnome (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG, checks out in sources. I don't know what the secret handshake society he runs is all about, but it's sourced so meh. As for "The practice in Wikipedia which has been consistent, is to delete...." - this is not correct. WP:DP says "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators normally will not delete it." WP:BLPDEL says "Page deletion is normally a last resort" and is more geared for things like "Joe Blow is a fraudster, drug dealer and suspected member of Britain First. He is believed to be behind a major heroin trafficking operation and organisation of plots of blow up properties owned by British Muslims. He has yet to be convicted and charged of any crime." (with citations to The Sun and the Daily Mirror) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverage of his life and activities over the decades far above the point where we consider deletion. Was there any news coverage when you sold your house? Here's the New York times in 2011, " In the midst of a flurry of activity at the very high end of the market over the last few weeks comes a contract signing, finally, on 870 Park Avenue, a nearly 12,000-square-foot town house that Benny Shabtai, an Israeli businessman who spent decades leading the watchmaker Raymond Weil's distribution team in the United States, put on the market seven years ago. The contract signing came after the listing changed hands among three of the city's top-selling brokers, undergoing a series of price changes that took the original $23 million asking price in 2004 to a high of $33 million in 2008, to the last asking price of $24.5 million. Streeteasy.com showed that the contract had been signed on May 13. The buyer will be getting a four-story mansion -- the facade was designed by Robert A. M. Stern -- with six bedrooms, six baths, a four-passenger elevator and a 1,150-square-foot office with a separate Park Avenue entrance....". Do you invest in tech startups? Shabtai does, here's the Wall Street Journal in 2000 Need $100,000? A Venture Capitalist May Be Living Just Down the Hall "NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Like other hardchargers who bankroll new companies, Peter Venech works 15-hour days scouring the high-tech landscape for the next Yahoo! or Amazon.com. But he has distractions. Term papers, for one thing.... 'I like their vision. I like their energy,' says Benny Shabtai, president of Raymond Weil USA, New York, a distributor of Swiss watches. Mr. Shabtai, who met Messrs. Venech and Stern through a campus social club... He has run large corporations, he's rich he invests, he donates, the press covers him... This keep' is a slam dunk.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small remark: You wrote that Shabtai "has run large corporations, he's rich, he invests, he donates, the press covers him." I'd think that out of those five qualifiers, only one, the latter, counts in Wikipedia as far as notability is concerned. The others might as well not exist. -The Gnome (talk) 13:53, 18 March 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.