Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzahi (Zack) Weisfeld

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. Improve it, please.

Can always be nominated again if needed. Just remember - AFD is not to be used for clean up. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tzahi (Zack) Weisfeld

[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)

Well this article's a mess. A big one too. But before we go in with brooms I put the community whether or not the article should stay. Regardless of the current advertisementy tone there are independent sources and the subject itself looks like it may eek over the bar of notability, so I'm listing this here to settle the matter first. As a preemptive strike, I note in this nomination that the article's contributor appears to be both a new and to have declared as a paid editor, so take this into account if and when he posts here. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your comments. As I have mentioned before, This article is not being paid by anyone. Weisfeld is a catalysator of innovation in the Hi-tech and start-up ecosystem not only in Israel , but also globally. I gave sitelinks to several independent sources such as Techchrunch, Calcalist,Insider magazine and Zdnet which indicates his contributions. Weisfeld was one of many few Israelis who holds Senior position in a large cooperate like Microsoft, and before that take a vital parts in Israeli hi-tech companies such as Modu. He founded Microsoft for startups and was the force behind the growth of Microsoft activities for startups, accelerators and investments with partnership of 200 accelerators, companies, Startups and Vc funds. I think his actions and biography are no different with other entrepreneur like Jonathan Medved , Hillel Fuld and other Israeli entrepreneurs. For conclusions, I think the subject itself are worth Wikipedia article, And I will be happy to work on it further for matching the Wikipedia standards. Shaykea (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/guidance The focus of the deletion decision should be 1) is the topic notable? If not notable then delete, if "possibly notable" (NOT "marginally notable, but no hope of finding sources to push it "over the line", but rather "there are likely sources that haven't turned up yet that will push it over the line" or "there is still debate over the quality of the sources"), soft delete, draftify (since there is obviously ongoing improvement, with hopes of finding suitable sources), userfy (ditto), or "no consensus." If it IS notable, BUT WP:Blow it up and start over applies, then salvage the references and userfy them and delete. Obviously, if the topic is notable and the page can be salvaged, then "keep and improve."

I have NOT read THIS article and its references closely enough to have an opinion on THIS AFD discussion YET. I'm just outlining the reasons for deletion vs. keep vs. other outcomes in a situation where the article is "a mess" and where the notability status is not yet certain. This comment is for inexperienced editors and others not familiar with AFD, it is a "high level" view and does not include all nuances, experienced AFD editors are aware of "edge case" situations where this does not apply. TomStar81, you are more "grey-beard" than I am by far (mop, golden wiki, 2004 start date, need I say more?), this comment isn't meant for you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to divide article subjects into notable / non-notable to make the pragmatic decision on whether to have an article, but it's an artifice mapping. Even within the GNG standards, subjects meet them to a varying extent: references are more or less reliable, more or less independent. , more or less significant. We can have 2 borderline acceptable references, or may excelletn ones. (By any real-life standard, there's of course a great variation---living people for example do not divide up nicely between two categories, nor does any other subject. ). Theidea that notability is an objective mechanical determination does not make sense, even using hte GNG, and we have about 30,000 AfD discussions a year to prove it , about 1/10 of the total articles. And notability however defied is of course not hte only consideration in deletion. We do not accept advertisements, or any of the other categories listed in NOT -- tho for all of them, it's again a matter of degree. The focus of the deletion decision isn't whether something is or is not notable--that's just one of the many possible reasons (though it's the most common one). It is on whether the article is appropriate for WP according to its policies--and notability is just one guideline related to one part pof one of the policies DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the patents, the dodgy external links per elno and a dodgy ref. There is more than enough coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV to build a new article. It is a BLP article that reads like a company article and references are very poor. Reference 3 is only one amongst the lot that provides biographical information in a profile, which itself is very poor. GBooks has enough to support a new article. I think this should be slimmed right down, get rid of the WP:PUFF. Changed from Delete to Comment. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing the arguments so far, It seems that most of the edtiors agree that the page can be notable. After scope_creep edited the article and removed content which may considered as WP:PUFF, the article was reviewed and verified by Onel5969. In Addition, I replaced some weak references and add cites from interviews in more common and objective news and media resources. Therefore after the corrections and the help of the community to make the article more notable, I suggest to remove the page from WP:AFD and keep it.Shaykea (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my review of the article was purely procedural, as it was nominated for deletion through AfD. The AfD discussion will be the arbiter of whether the article is kept or not, so per NPP sop, these articles are routinely marked reviewed to remove them from the back-logged queue. I have not reached an opinion on the notability of the subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading this article, I wonder what the deletionist had in mind. The subject is clearly notable and the sources are solid. I see no valid basis for deletion.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 (Talk) Since you have flagged the article with WP:AfD at the first place, I will be happy to get your feedback on the current situation of the Article. Do you think that in the current situation the WP:AFD should be removed? Shaykea (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaykea: Sorry for the slow reply, I didn't realize you had reached out to me. In answer to your question I do not have the authority to remove the tag because the article is not nominated for speedy deletion, it is nominated for deletion, which means it is before the community as a whole. As a check on this, a two man rule is in place here, so since I nominated it I can not close it, another admin will do so and interpret the discussion here to ensure partiality. Since the nomination began work has been done on the article, but at the moment only a single keep !vote has been tallied, so it ultimately comes down to the assertion by Geewhiz that the article is notable the sources solid vs my assertion that the article is promotional in nature. Keep in mind you may cast an !vote too, if you like, you are a member of the community and unless you are under sanctions not to do so you may contribute here as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been a lot of general talk about what is and isn't eligible for deletion and relatively little discussion about whether Weisfeld is a notable topic specifically.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : As I have mentioned before, Zack Weisfeld is a major force in the Israeli and the worldwide Start-ups Ecosystem. He was a senior executive in microsoft and he was in charge of all microsoft investments at startups and expanding its accelerators. His biography are no different with other entrepreneur like Jonathan Medved , Hillel Fuld and other Israeli entrepreneurs.

Shaykea (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Zack Weisfeld is a senior executive in microsoft and was in charge of all microsoft investments at startups and expanding its accelerators. There are 21 Reliable and highly valued source references e.g. Forbes,Globes newspaper,TechCrunch, www.calcalist.co.il etc . He was listed as "one of the 10 most influential Israelis in high-tech in the world" by Business Insider Magazine. I see no reason to delete such important information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterLord1980 (talk • contribs)

The above keep vote is so far this editors only WP-edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing to disprove what I said so you attack me personally, this is called Ad Hominem "attacking the person instead of attacking his argument". And by the way what you said is false, this is my second edit. My last one was a year ago :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterLord1980 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WaterLord1980: This is getting a bit off-topic. You should forgive the misunderstanding about the edit count: Like me, the other editor was probably only considering your edit history on the English-language Wikipedia. I dug a bit deeper and saw that yes, indeed, you did make one edit on a different-language Wikipedia in 2019 (see here). Please forgive the misunderstanding. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I was 100% wrong about the number of edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been canvassed about this AfD by an IP. Personally I am quite troubled by the effort that someone (or some people) are going to to get this article created and kept. Created by a paid editor, photo approved through OTRS, accounts from other language wikis with virtually no edits suddenly appearing here to support its retention. The subject appears to be borderline notable, but the behaviour of those involved makes me want to support its deletion. Number 5 7 16:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I read the discussion above. As well as I know, Mr. Weisfeld is a notable figure, and one of the leaders of the early-stage technology scene in Israel for the last decade, founding and leading two of the most influential global startup programs by Intel and Microsoft, after a long career as an entrepreneur and executive in succesful tech companies. The article has many sources and articles that demonstrate that, and it's fairly well written, so I'd vote "keep". --Hmbr (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another aspect of this AfD that looks suspicious – this is only the third edit to en.wiki this year by Hmbr (previous one in September). What is going on here? I would guess that I am not the only editor who was canvassed here. Number 5 7 16:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I have stumbled across this AfD without having been prompted - FYI. Based on the sourcing and content, while not an outstanding article in and of itself, I don't have an issue with notability or reliability. It strikes me as in interesting encyclopedia piece on a leader in his field in his country.--Concertmusic (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability guidelines. The shape of the article and the fact that some COI people might want it to stay I don't think changes that. The article didn't seem to be in too bad of a shape to me, but I'm not that experienced. Nobody told me to come here Bedfordres (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added copyedited and added some data and references to the article. Calcalist, Forbes, Business Insider, Times of Israel and Globes are all worthy sources. There seems to be no question of notability here.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, we should make every effort to put this person under Tzahi or Zack. The current name looks really bad. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2020 (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.