Omer Dekel

Omer Dekel (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)

not really certainseriously doubt (edited by request) Professor Dekel passes our GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. With his books and articles about his teachings, as well as public positions, he clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC. The issue, that need to be solved in the article and absence of sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I protest the nomination of an article at Afd with the stated reason that "not really sure". Unless a nominator is sure an article does not meet criteria, they should refrain from nominating them. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well nominator may not be sure, but currently it's clear case of BLP and though I personally think the article must stay, first thing to avoid deletion is to put proper references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source or delete BLP applies and any bio needs a bit more than one workplace stafflist if it's to stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A lot about this article and the nomination seems off. Firstly that person created the article and tagged it as an orphan and walked away making no other changes, seems a bit strange to me. Additionally a person unsure about if its notable or not nominated it within 1 minute of being posted. How did all of this happen? Anyway, as it stands right now the only source is a staff listing. There is no sources proving he meets WP:GNG on top of all of the WP:BLP violations. - Galatz^Talk 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz - to answer your question, I was checking the New Pages Feed at the time this article was created. I also AfD'ed these articles within minutes of their creation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmo Village, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Visa Extension Fee Structure in India. DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep. I wish I could see any indication that Nom is aware of WP:BEFORE But a very quick search indicates that sources exist.

• (Yukins, Christopher R. "EDITOR'S NOTE: A RESPONSE TO OMER DEKEL'S "LEGAL THEORY OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING"" Public Contract Law Journal 37, no. 2 (2008): 269-70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25755453.)
• The Philadelphia Inquirer "Omer Dekel, alliances and innovation partner, broadband, cable, and satellite at Amdocs" [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

E.M.Gregory:

• Your second source (the Inquirer) is about a different person named Omer Dekel entirely. A 60-second Google search shows one is a middle manager with brown hair at a small company in Bala Cynwyd, Philadelphia [2], our BLP is a professor in Israel with grey hair [3].

• So much for making assumptions based on a unique-looking name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a tip - when I WP:BEFORE I usually include, as part of the process, a Google Images search as it can sometimes help identify cases of identical names. You might find it helpful, too. With 7 billion people on Earth, the only assumption I generally make during BEFORE is that there are at least two people who have the same name. DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• The first source doesn't provide biographical information, it's an acknowledgment that the BLP wrote an article about competitive bidding in a small scholarly journal (with an impact factor of 0.09, lower than the Appalachian Law Review).
  

DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, no. the JSTOR link is not to an "acknowledgement", it is a short essay in which the journal's editor takes issue with certain aspects of Dekel's argument. I do not know this journal, or this field; I do not know whether this is an important journal or not. Note, however, that in nominating an article where you have done a WP:BEFORE assessment, it is usual to give fellow editors a précis of how your searched and what you found. Especially useful if, as you imply, you have some knowledge of the academic field concerned and the prestige of the journals in which a scholar has published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My basic point, however, is my discomfort with deleting unsourced articles about a page where apparently plausible claims to notability are made unless good-faith attempts have been made to verify those claims.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the fact I was, in fact, aware the Philadelphia Inquirer article you cited was about an entirely different Omer Dekel ameliorates your concerns about the thoroughness of my BEFORE vetting! Best - DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]