Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Federmann

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Nomination would have been likely to be closed as no consensus had it not been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 23:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Federmann[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and therefore fails WP:GNG Completely non notable. scope_creep 19:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn by Nominator scope_creep talk 18:49 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Federmann may or may not be notable, but there are no sources showing that he is notable.Stesmo (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please Leave Federmann is notable because of who is and what he has done. The page just needs sorting out. The page also lacks categories for him, of which there are of course. Again, the page just needs sorting out. Some reasons why he is notable:

Some reasons why he is notable: He is Israeli and yet he has been honoured by the British establishment - rather unusual. Very few are like that although there are others (David Landau, David Newman, Shimon Peres and Penny (Cope?) - A British teacher of english living in Israel).

Moreover, it is what he was honoured for that makes this (a) notable and (b) rather pertinent to British politics and history. He was honoured for helping foster trade relations in the area of military and security, through which he created hundreds of jobs in Great Britain. This is highly unusual and thus real bridge building.

One source for this so far: http://www.alondon.net/index.php?action=art&id=7230&lang=en_GB This is pertinent to British politics and history as ever: In light of the current conflict in Gaza (Operation Protective Edge) the British government is mulling over its trade relations with Israel in the area of arms licenses. e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/gaza/11017683/Government-to-announce-tougher-arms-export-measures-to-Israel.html

Also, his appointment to Honourary Commander of the British Empire is also proof that native Israelis have been able to achieve high social recognition in the UK even as foreigners who are not members of the commonwealth, despite the fact that Israel was once a former British Mandate and had sometimes had frosty relations with the UK as a result.

Landau and Newman and the others (barring Peres) are both dual British and Israeli citizens born and bred in the UK to naturalised UK citizens while Federmann, who strictly speaking would qualify as a citizen of the British Mandate of Palestine because he was born in 1943 during Mandate rule, is actually regarded as native Israeli because he was never naturalised as a British citizen, being only 5 during the declaration of independence and being born to German-Jewish immigrants to Palestine.

Landau, Newman and Peres were all awarded their honours from the Queen because of their political alignment with and contribution to the peace process and thus favourable in the eyes of the British establishment (One could go as far as to say that the honour conferred upon them was used as a tool to gain secure political influence in Israel for the peace process). Federmann was not awarded his honour on political grounds, making it less obvious why he was awarded it and thus more interesting/notable.

AusCanBri (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't agree with you here, AusCanBri - so many assumptions, and even if they weren't I just don't see that any of your points make him exceptional or notable. Countless individuals can claim the same of themselves as you do of him. Just not notable.

~~Keep~~. Google turns up lots of refs for example 1. Szzuk (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Stesmo TheFrontDeskMust (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Szzuk, the blog post at 1 is not notable. It's a blog and has no editorial control to check the facts, so not valid as a source. scope_creep talk 18:57 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'd look for more sources but I don't think given his wealth he's that bothered about a page on WP! Szzuk (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - True at the moment. I've no doubt as a billionaire, he could easily be notable in the future. scope_creep talk 22:42 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    - You can strike my keep vote. Szzuk (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've overhauled the page. Please take a look AusCanBri 18:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC). Added structure, detail, some points of notability (some direct and indirect) and some more categories. Could do with a little help - adding a picture for example would be good.[reply]
Keep anyone with MBE honours is likely to be prima facie notable. This guy also runs major businesses and is listed as one of the richest entrepreneurs in a prosperous first world country.ShulMaven (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. Seems to be one of these behind the scences type. scope_creep talk 18:49 30 August 2014 (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.