Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel (2nd nomination)

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 09:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Teitel[edit]

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

This article is a case of WP:BLP1E. The subject was the subject of news coverage for crimes but is not inherently notable. Joe407 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a deletion review (WP:DRV) ~~here~~ I correct: here, 2009 November 13. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question re BLP1E is: if there is a one-event, what is that one event? -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per DePiep's question. As I said in the previous AFD, Teital's name has been tied not to just one event, but to several very notable events including the 2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting, the attack against prof. Zeev Sternhell and the booby-trap against the Messianic Jewish family (not as notable as the other two, but still notable[1][2][3]). Rami R 12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. How can we have such an article? The criminality of this person is why he notable, but he has not been convicted!? Chesdovi (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not his criminality, it's the accusations and indictment which have achieved broad coverage. These are notable by themselves, even without a guilty verdict. Rami R 14:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But should allegations and suspicsions be documented on wiki if that is the only claim to notability? Chesdovi (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly not a BLP1E case, as Rami R makes clear, and no NOTNEWS argument is laid out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is backed by reliable and verifiable sources about the individual covering a broad time period beyond any single incident, establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite famous in Israel and a bit famous outside Israel. Enough sources available, and there are sure to be more as the case develops. Zero^talk 07:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: from WP:PERP, Note: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jalapenos has a good point although it's not a blanket prohibition and the article doesn't speak to his guilt. The variety and severity of the charges might have made him notable to the press even if he turns out to be innocent. The trial should be wrapping up soon and we can go from there. Sol (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having reread the article, the AfD, and the DRV, I see no new argument here. There's a string of events, a confession, an arrest, accusations of terrorism: on and on. And still no killer argument for deletion. So please answer: what is that one event, you are talking about? -DePiep (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no relevant connection to a failure of WP:BLP1E,WP:BIO or WP:NOTNEWS here. Notability is from continuing and persistent coverage, and a sequence of major acts spanning several years is not a one-event case. Even if this were a one-event case, the level of persistent coverage pushes it into historical notability anyhow. Ray^Talk 20:18, 11 October 2010 (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.