Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehud R. Toledano

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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud R. Toledano[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)

He does not meet notability criteria and this article is mostly self-written. User Ottemp who created this article is Ehud R. Toledano, see here for the proof. --Visnelma (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I assume that being "University Chair for Ottoman & Turkish Studies would pass WP:NACADEMIC point number 5 "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education." Personally, I'm not a super big fan of the rule, but it is what it is. In this case, I think the best thing to do would be to keep the article, have him blocked for COI editing, and delete all the self-written badly referenced stuff. It won't be deleted based on notability grounds due to him passing WP:NACADEMIC though. Nor do I think it necessary should be. Even if I mostly disagree WP:NACADEMIC myself. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Adamant1. COI is a strike against the author, not a strike against the subject/article. The article should be edited to remove promotional languages and unsupported assertions. — Ad Meliora ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not notable. Subject is just a professor at Tel Aviv Unversity who has written about seven books. That is not notable. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to a credible WP:NPROF case, the subject has written several books, with plenty of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. A cursory and not-necessarily complete JSTOR search yielded [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. (Q: Is there a tool to automate building citations from JSTOR?) As it's now been stubified, the WP:PROMO issues now seem to be dealt with. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Russ Woodroofe: I have a Python command-line script I use to turn text copied from the jstor metadata page into citation templates, but it's not exactly production code. It generally needs additional effort both after and sometimes before to make it work well enough. It doesn't separate out author names into their components. It falls down for journals that number things in different ways than Vol. and No. It doesn't convert dates to standard formats. And it doesn't handle titles, because reviews don't usually have titles. But if you think it might be useful for you, I've put it online at User:David Eppstein/jstor.py. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @David Eppstein: Thank you! It definitely beat doing everything by hand. I'm surprised that citer doesn't handle JSTOR; maybe there are terms of service issues. Anyway, 18 reviews now in article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Russ Woodroofe: Nice! I changed the citations to say title=none, since they were all boilerplate titles like "Review: X". Academic bios can accumulate long lists of book reviews, and the titles of those reviews seldom impart new information, so in cases like these I think it's best to omit them. XOR'easter (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re citer: in developing my script I found that it is not possible to use software to retrieve even metadata content from jstor (if you're not connecting to jstor with a browser you will get sent to the "I'm not a robot" page, and even manual browsing of jstor with too-rapid page clicks will likely get you to that page) and that they're not interested in changing to accomodate automatic metadata retrieval. On the other hand a reasonable fraction of their pages have dois and you should be able to get to the metadata from the doi database instead of from jstor. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no third party sources which is what is absolutely needed to justify an article on a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of receiving multiple reviews for each of multiple books. Visnelma's stubbifying the page removes concerns about promotionalism, and it can be expanded back a bit again based on the book reviews found by Russ Woodroofe, which are third-party sources about his work (the work being almost always the most important aspect of an academic's life to explain). XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had major notable works done. Mr-5 / ^{M ✉ / C🖋} 16:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stubbification takes care of the promotionalism and reviews now in the article demonstrate a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tzahy (talk) 18:12, 19 November 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.