Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehud Arye Laniado

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. OK, the consensus is clearly that this topic is solely notable for the manner of death as the sourcing of other aspects has been argued to be inadequate and the arguments only weakly rebutted. Thus WP:BLP1E or WP:1E would apply and as noted the BLP policy's applicability does not immediately cease upon the death of an individual (1E does not require the individual to be alive at all). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud Arye Laniado[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There are valid concerns as to whether or not this biography meets our requirements for biographies of living people: his apparent main claim to notability is dying in an apparently embarrassing way. That makes for good click bait, but is hardly what we expect when taking into account the BLP policy’s presumption in favour of privacy when things such as BLP1E come up. The other sources that claim to be about his business career don’t really focus on him and don’t pass GNG in my view. Regardless, as this is trying to be put on the main page, having the AfD discussion about it now that valid concerns have been raised should happen before that occurs, not after. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One might expect that the death of someone like Laniado during supposedly low-risk surgery at a private clinic would make French regulators look closely at the standards of private clinics and what the doctors involved did or didn't do. I think his claim to notability is being a diamond merchant, not the way he died. He was not a run-of-the-mill diamond merchant. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and the article in its current version only mentions the manner of his death once at the end where it cannot be avoided. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is absurd in its concern about our "requirements for biographies of living people" when the subject is so clearly dead. See also WP:CENSOR. Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies to folks, who have recently expired. To quote from WP:BDP:- ... people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Also, have you read my comments over the DYK page? ∯WBG^converse 18:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be based on an old version of the article and old (rejected) DYK hooks. The argument has been made and accepted that the original placed too much emphasis on the manner of his death and the article and DYK nom were revised accordingly. He's notable as a diamond dealer and billionaire and meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not about the content, but the fact that the main reason he has any claim to notability is the manner of his death, which correctly has been removed for all but the references. Anyway, when good faith concerns have been raised about something like this, the correct response is to have a discussion at AfD so the community can decide, rather than posting it on the main page first. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and my comments over the DYK page. There's nil GNG level coverage barring those which cover his embarrassing death and we do a disservice, by sourcing from news that have since been taken down. ∯WBG^converse 18:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it's not meet [WP:GNG] as I see. Even the final paragraph in Career section linked to an YouTube video.Forest90 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because BLP applies to the recently deceased (for excellent reasons,) and because that sourcing about his death is tabloid-style sensationalism, I think that we would need sourcing of his career as a diamond dealer that makes a persuasive that he is not a WP:MILL diamond dealer, but, rather, a dealer of clear notability. Notability that makes taking down the article ineligible. I have run searches with and without his middle name, and I'm just not seeing that degree of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. His sole claim to notability is his macabre death; his career isn't appreciably different than thousands of other traders without Wikipedia articles. SnowFire (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. His bizarre death got some coverage, but that falls under WP:ONEEVENT. I agree that BLP restrictions apply to this recently deceased individual. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of how he died, he was never a BLP1E case. Laniado was/is notable for at least two other things. Firstly, he was the seller of the world's most expensive diamond, the Blue Moon of Josephine ($48.4 million). Reliable sources for this include the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Jewish Chronicle. Secondly, he was being pursued by the Belgian government for alleged tax evasion since 2013, and was due in court in March 2019, (11 days after his death) to respond to a suit for €4.6 billion ($5.27 billion). Sourcing for this is the Times of Israel, International Business Times and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Of course, the manner of his death led to increased media attention, but he would have met our notability criteria anyway. As the article currently stands, the only mention of how he died is in the final sentence, under "Personal life". Edwardx (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the non-death related references are trivial and passing mentions. Laniado shows up in a single sentence in this article with nothing directly attributed to him, merely his business group. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation article doesn't even mention Laniado at all, so it's not even a trivial mention, which is not shocking - the billionaire who buys the diamond is far more interesting than the middleman broker. These are the only two reliable, secondary source references that are not talking about his death, so... no, this is a textbook BLP1E, an "article" written with only pre-death sources would be 1 sentence long. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2019 (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.