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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nir Eyal[edit]

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

Another enterpreneur bio with very little to no independent detail about the individual (vice the companies he's associated with). Where's the WP:NBIO beef? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 18:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little evidence of notability and seems rather promotional. Number 5 7 09:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known business expert. Easily meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an advertorially aimed article, with an ext link in the body, which is typical of such promotional articles. I'm not seeing notability here; the sources are passing mentions or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's regularly cited in the media as an expert and is very well known in Silicon Valley and elsewhere. Also a Wall Street Journal best selling author. I'll try to improve the article a bit to make it align better with the guidelines. kjemperud (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Judging by the username of the editor who uploaded the image to commons (which claims to be Eyal) and the one who wrote this article, it would appear that this is an auto-biography. It also appears that kjemperud has a strong WP:COI with the subject, describing them as "a good friend" on their website (which is linked from their userpage). I spotted this after becoming suspicious that they had edited the article within half an hour of its creation and were somehow aware of the file on common and have only had seven editing sessions since 2011 yet managed to spot this AfD. I think that their !vote should therefore be discounted. I have left a note on their talk page advising them to stop editing the article. Number 5 7 10:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Number 57 thank you for letting me know about the WP:COI guidelines. I'm not that experienced of an editor as you noted, so let me just plainly state that I do indeed seem to have a COI since I know Eyal. I'm not trying to hide that fact. I will avoid editing the article directly as the guidelines suggest, but I still want to voice my opinion here that like gidonb noted the article easily meets the WP:GNG. As those guidelines clearly state, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" which is clearly the case. For anyone doubting that fact, just look at some of the sources included on this version of the page (including articles by MIT Technology Review and Wired dedicated to Eyal's work) which Number 57 has since removed. The edits I made were just in the interest of cleaning up the article (e.g. removed inline external link, restructured the article a bit as the sections were a bit illogical, and added some updated sources since a lot of the current ones are quite old), so I'd suggest that someone without a COI look through what's available here to re-add whatever such a person would deem to be relevant. Kjemperud (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2017 (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.