Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisha Qimron

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. — Caknuck 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elisha Qimron

Non-notable jewish scholar.--Edtropolis 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand/cleanup/wikify - his recognized claim to copyright on his translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls as reported by at least two [1] [2] of the clearly reliable sources provided is certainly notable. --Evb-wiki 16:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is nonsense to describe Qimron as a 'non-notable Jewish scholar' as he is internationally famous for his work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, has written and is mentioned in many books and websites, etc! Jack1956 16:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He may be internationally famous, but he has no date of birth. Plus this article's only have over a thousand G-hits.--Edtropolis 17:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of the information is a {{stub}} issue, not a notability issue. --Evb-wiki 17:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are not the same thing as notability. In many cases (especially American pop culture subjects) they can be a useful barometer, but in many cases notable individuals from outside late 20th century/early 21st century North America have few Ghits. As for date of birth, remember that many living persons keep their dates of birth private for security purposes. And if date of birth were a measure of notability, we'd have to remove articles on the Virgin Mary, Moses, etc. --Charlene 19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll point out that most of his work was "pre-web," and Google will not be a reliable indicator of his notability. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as obvious from the article. I'd do it myself except I'm known to often support these articles. Why should noms. be taken seriously when they give no explanation; explaining that the most senior level of academics are notable over and over again is a waster of time when hwe have actually problematic articles to deal with. DGG 07:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. World famous in academic circles, easily notable. - Pharaonic 11:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- major scholar; well researched article which clearly describes notability. Nomination gives no evidence for NN. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as he's certainly well known. Not even remotely in my field and I've heard of him. (And why mention his religion in the nomination? Unless you're referring to his work, in which case he would technically be an Essene scholar.) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:10, 17 June 2007 (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.