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. Clear consensus that the subject isn't notable, hence delete. No consensus about whether or not to redirect. That means that anybody is free to create a redirect, which may then be challenged via RfD.  Sandstein  09:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Calif[edit]

Ori Calif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This lawyer made the news for demolishing a historic pub, but that's not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject is covered in reliable sources but mainly for his involvement in "demolishing a pub", which falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Meatsgains (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect into Carlton Tavern, Kilburn. Other than a description of the Tavern demolition, there's not a whole lot of other information that isn't from sources independent of the subject.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Meatsgains. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Carlton Tavern, Kilburn. He is notable only for that incident. Maproom (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Carlton Tavern, Kilburn as we generally do in such cases. Cavarrone 21:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete preferred; Redirect if you must. The discussion of Calif in Carlton Tavern, Kilburn borders on WP:COATRACK. There's really nothing about him in the article except for a tiny mention that is probably out of line under WP:CENTURY. In the unlikely event someone looks to Wikipedia for information about Ori Calif, they're not going to find anything in that article. As between Redirect and Keep, Redirect is the lesser of two evils, but Delete is really the way to go. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the GNG. Has coverage in a variety of secondary sources in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and extensive coverage in 2015 that is not in this article as excessive but may be found in the Carlton Tavern article. He is synonymous with his company so those sources are actually about his actions. Has also written four books on international taxation (in Hebrew). Philafrenzy (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - References 1, 3, 4 are trivial industry listings and do not show notability. Reference 2 is a short vanity interview of subject. Nothing that indicates notability. Reference 5 does not mention the subject. References 6, 7, 8 are about demolition of Carlton Tavern, not the subject. (8 requires registration and should be deleted.) Reference 9 is about common business investment litigation and does not demonstrate notability. Reference 10 is a listing regarding another individual. I don't see a reference to the subject and even if one exists it is trivial. There is nothing that indicates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The GNG states that "Significant coverage" means that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail. Industry sources are not excluded from this, nor are sources requiring registration or news sources that report in depth on court cases the subject has been involved in. There are multiple sources here that address him as a person over a period of years plus the Carlton Tavern sources which are relevant because he is the "developer" they are talking about in those sources. I see ref 10 was broken. I have fixed it to go to the right place. It's about him. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think people concerned by this case will be searching for it, not him. Blythwood (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per recommendations above. -- Hybris1984 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the spirit of WP:BLP I don't think we should be redirecting people's names to articles which primarily contain negative coverage of them. Moreover, this isn't even what he's primarily known for. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2016 (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.