Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eran Ben-Shahar

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 delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eran Ben-Shahar[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)

Promo piece (autobio?) of somebody with zero notability. How is it possible that this has been on WP since 2007? Schwede 66 17:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Schwede 66 17:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article contains no reliable secondary sources; I don't think a few short radio interviews establish notability. I've conducted the usual WP:BEFORE searches (normal Google, Google Books, Google News and Google Scholar) and found nothing. Appears to fail the WP:BIO criteria. I note that the user who created the article, Moshe buchrai (talk · contribs), has worked on nothing else and the only other substantive edits to the page have been made by anon IP editors. Likewise, somewhat astonished that this has remained without challenge for 14 years, but I suppose very few people would have been looking at the article in the first place. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Similar findings to the above. An article on a guy with a fantasy. Contents and references are a complete disaster. I have NOT looked elsewhere because, even if we could hypothetically piece the WP:GNG together (not checked, just for the sake of the argument), WP:TNT would take clear preference. Exceptionally, the point of web searches is mute. Kudos to User:Schwede66 for the nomination! gidonb (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2021 (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.