Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronen Segev

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. Luna Santin 04:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronen Segev

Ronen Segev (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Notability —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgroos (talk • contribs) 2007-01-16 00:12:10 (UTC)

Note: this nomination was made by a SPA whose only edits were in placing this article up for AfD. --Farix (Talk) 14:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This individual has contacted the WMF office and asked for the entire article to be deleted, FYI.--Brad Patrick 21:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT User:F.F.McGurk, who has made several comments below, is banned editor User:Rootology.--MONGO 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I wonder if the one source added is enough for WP:BIO Alf photoman 14:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, notable See this. Also, this person has hired people to remove his entry per various sources on the Internet. Per this we shouldn't. People don't get to decide if they are notable themselves. F.F.McGurk 18:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: More sources being added. There are tons out there; this person is definitely notable. F.F.McGurk 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable Looks like this guy just wanted the Priceline content removed. Regardless, his article, in its entirety (musical and otherwise)is not notable. User:Sgroos 18:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: The sources being added are for the musical group that this guy is a part of, not Segev in particular, although he was named. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgroos (talk • contribs).

  The musical group he founded per the sources. All valid. Notable. F.F.McGurk 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Also, what is your primary username? This new SPA account has no edits beyond this. Thanks! F.F.McGurk 18:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  It is my primary username..I'm still learning the ropes...I noticed the blogging on this, and couldn't understand why they were making an issue over this guy, not like he's a celebrity or anything.. Thanks! User:Sgroos 18:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  You've already made the nomination. You don't get to vote twice. Not that AfDs are votes per say. And fix your signature. --Farix (Talk) 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! User:Sgroos

• Keep - articles in the NY Times and Post along with other news coverage, for both his musical work and his recent issues, confirm notability IMO. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I find it difficult to assume good faith behind this nomination. Subject seems notable to me, as (currently, at least) is the Reputation Defender brouhaha. Groyolo 22:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Left more info in article, with more sourcing. Establishing notability. F.F.McGurk 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - other than the silly harassment of this poor guy by Priceline, he seems otherwise not particularly notable. It seems impossible to me to have a very good article about him, there simply are not enough good sources. The only things that are publicly known about him seem tenuous at best, and mostly related to this one incident, which seems pretty irrelevant. --Jimbo Wales 22:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge relevant content with Priceline article, delete bio as non-notable. --24fan24 00:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm missing something here. What does a classical artistic director have to do with an online travel booking service? --Oakshade 17:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See the talk page. There is content that was removed and under discussion for reinclusion. --24fan24 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yikes. And here I was voting keep without any knowledge of that (that material was removed from the article before I got here). That incident just adds to his notability in my view and the sourced content should stay, albeit not the primary "weight" of the article. --Oakshade 07:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, not likely to become notable and it he does, the article can then be recreated.--MONGO 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep References and subject pulic exposure are very good, particularly the New York Times article about him. --Oakshade 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment The NY Times article is about his group, and mentions him, but is not "about" him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newbiez12345 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Exactly, it's about HIS group and how HE created the ensemble, kind of like a book review is about the book and the author who wrote it and in WP AfD debates, reveiws of an author's work is, per precendent, ALWAYS considered a supporting evidence of the notability of that suject. He's not just a passing mention, but is witten about throughout the entire article. --Oakshade 03:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, see what you mean, but I just feel like it's not really about him, and while the review covers him, the majority of the piece is about the evening as a whole, and the other performers. Newbiez12345

• Delete I agree with MONGO above. At this point, there's not enough substantive info on the individual. If he becomes notable, the article can be recreated. Newbiez12345

  — Possible single purpose account: Newbiez12345 (talk • contribs) has made only 2 edits outside this topic. Account created January 18, 2007, after this AfD started.

• I think it's a clear keep but a minor incident with some company is not worth noting in a serious biographical article, and doing so by the backdoor by linking to an article that is about that and incidentally mentions him is unacceptable. Keep article but remove harassment.Grace Note 10:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There was never any stable harassment of him in the article since I've been watching it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Jimbo's opinion notwithstanding (incidentally, I agree with him when he removed some items of tabloid interest from the article), this does seem like a notable pianist and performer with performances in several locations. I think the New York Times coverage is not trivial, and the other media mentions mean that the person passes WP:BIO. The current stub looks valid enough, discusses his music and performing career only, and has no major BLP concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Harassment/legal; This Afd was created by either a meat/sock of someone, perhaps the subject or Reputation Defender. There has been no harassment of anything or anyone in here, and this appears to be a nom being supported tied into the fact he yelled at someone at the Foundation. We routinely put in comments about "issues" with people on articles, but we do censor them out if the person happens to yell at someone over the phone at WMF about it? If so are we going to whitewash? There was at last version "1" sentence about his arrest in the article, TRIPLE sourced to WP:RS sources. F.F.McGurk 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  Are you accusing everyone who disagrees with your position on this of bad faith? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newbiez12345 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

• DeleteThere is no "there" there with regard to the personal issue. Has no bearing on his musical career, which is in an early stage to begin with. Why muck up a fledgling career with an article that has a bit of controversy that will potentially harm him? The old adage of "There is no such thing as bad publicity" is not true in this case.Lloyd Arriola 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Lloyd Arriola

  I honestly believe the subject's notability originates from his artistic accomplishments and the Priceline incident is relatively minor in comparison to them. --Oakshade 18:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete After long deliberation, I can only come to this conclusion. The only reason this person is notable is over the PriceLine incident, which isn't all that notable to begin with. On top of that, there are not enough non-trivial published works to convince me that he passes WP:MUSIC. Musicians are a dime a dozen, and they are bound to have at least a handful of non-trivial published works throughout their career. But that still doesn't make them notable. --Farix (Talk) 14:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm leaning towards strong keep, actually. There may in the past have been content added which stepped on the toes of WP:BLP, but looking at the article at this minute, all that's there is a brief bio which indisputably asserts his notability through this cited source. There's no need to get so antsy about deletion when all we have to do is splice out the stuff about his arrest. --DeLarge 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - spruced up the page a tiny bit with some background info, and rewrote the middle paragraph so that it's less of a copy/paste from the TOC website. Couldn't find birthdate/birthplace details though so it's still a bit sparse. And I stand by my "keep" vote - the article existed for six months without problem before the addition of cntroversial (though cited) content and subsequent edit warring led us here. --DeLarge 18:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. More notable than the subjects 50% (min.) of articles on Wikipedia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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.