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. The refs have been discussed at length and the noms interpretation of them not accepted, new refs were also added. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Lancut Leibovitz (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)

There is something almost funny about a self-professed etiquette expert paying to have an article written about herself, in violation of perhaps not the letter of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but certainly the spirit of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. As for the letter of the policies and guidelines, the article contains a number of claims that cannot be verified by independent, reliable sources, and the coverage in some of the sources is not exactly significant. The BBC calls her "one of the country's leading image gurus", but fails to say much about her. I don't think the requirements of the WP:GNG are met. Vexations (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vexations - Thank you for your Comments. Tami Lancut Leibovits is a notable person in her field as mentioned by the BBC. I've noted from your comments that additional verified, independent, reliable sources are needed. Besides the BBC, I've listed "Ynet" and "Haaretz" which are very important and significant news websites in Israel. I've also added as a reference a video Interview from the "Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation" (Hebrew subtitles available). Following your comments I've added another reference from Globes - a well known business Newspaper in Israel. I think that by the above references the requirements of the WP:GNG are met. If you believe that still additional resources are needed I'll add some more. Please let me know if you find any other issue in this article that you think should be fixed. Thanks again for your comments. Arielinson (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson,

• [1] is not about the subject, but dedicates three sentences to her. That is not significant coverage.

The BBC coverage is a source for the fact that TLL is a person of significance. It is clearly mentioned there.the source is significant.Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, "significant coverage" refers to the source as the content of the article, not the author or the publisher. The BBC is considered a reliable source, but not everything they publish is "significant coverage". In this case, the BBC, a reliable source provided a trivial mention. Vexations (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [2] I don't read Hebrew, but it looks like the only mention of the subject is a quote by her.

This Hebrew reference is saying that TLL is a consultant for business executives. The source is major Israeli newspaper. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, So it really has nothing to offer other than "Tami Lancut-Leibowitz, an image and communications consultant for executives and businesspeople". That's not in-depth coverage. And it just repeats what's already been sourced to other sources. Adding references for the sake of increasing the number of references, especially in a paid article is unnecessary. Use only the best sources. If there is a better source that supports this claim, use that one. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [3] more quotes by the subject.

the quote "image consultant guru" is not a quote by the subject. It shows that the subject is of significance. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, I was referring to the quotes provided by her. You seem to think that "image consultant and etiquette guru Tami Lancut Leibovitz, who has become a devoted viewer of the Knesset Channel in preparation of the new role and has been able to map the lawmakers' key problems" establishes that the subject is notable. It doesn't. It merely asserts that she is an etiquette guru. There's no analysis of what she's done, what kind of change she has effected or how her work has transformed Israeli society for example. Merely saying someone is something doesn't make it so. You also need to show it. Vexations (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [4] is a video of the subject appearing on a television show

Indeed. the TV inteview from a major Israeli news channel shows that the subject is of significance thus the WP:GNG are met and the article should not be deleted.Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [5] is bylined DPA. I'm not surewho DPA refers to: Deutsche Presse-Agentur? but it's a promotional article that offers no critical assessment or analysis of the subjects contributions to thinking about etiquette.

again this article was published in a major Israeli Newspaper. It is a reliable source. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, yes, we generally consider Haaretz a reliable source. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally publish material that offers no critical assessment or analysis, which is why my objection. Vexations (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [6] is a blog, not a relibalesouce.

If you beleive this source is not needed it can be deleted. there is another reliable source instead. but I think it should be kept as another source even if it might be considered less credible. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [7] is by the subject

I dont see a reason removing this source if othere reliable significant sources exist to support the article. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, as pointed out above, we prefer to use the best available secondary source. If such a source exists, it should be used in stead of the primary source. Vexations (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, there is no in-depth, significant coverage that is about her by independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a "dpa" logo at the bottom of that article mentioned in bullet #5 above, and it matches the logo shown in the article about Deutsche Presse-Agentur. In the middle of that article I see "— Advertisement —", but I'm not sure whether this means that the whole article is an advertisement or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Following your helpful comments I've added another source which is an in -depth significant coverage about TLL by another reliable source - "Makor Rishon." Yet another major news site in Israel. I've also responded above to your comments about the sources. I think all sources shows that the subject of this article is of significance and thus this article should not be deleted from that WP:GNG reason. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations First of all thank you for your comments and for your help in editing the article. I've noticed that next to the statement "The institute provides consultation services on etiquette for local and international clients such as business executives and government officials." you added "not in the citation given". In the citations I've listed it is clearly mentioned that TLL trained business executives and government officials. It clearly support this fact. Therefore I think that "not in the citation given" should be removed. Please let me know your thoughts about this. Thanks. Arielinson (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is irritatingly promotional at its core. Yes, the subject has been mentioned in some articles about etiquette, but as best I can tell, the articles were focused primarily on the topic of etiquette rather than on the person who is the subject of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof thank you for your comment. I did my best to make this article non promotional and list only facts about the person. If you find promotional content please let me know where it is and I'll delete it myself. I think every aspect in this article is important biographic data about this person. Following your comment saying the articles are mostly about etiquette I've added another source in Hebrew which is dedicated to the person in this Wikipedia article. Arielinson (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As time has passed since my comment above was made, the content of the article has evolved, and the discussion here has included enough additional information that I no longer think the article should be deleted. I therefore have struck through my prior "delete" recommendation. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Tami Lancut Leibovitz is a notable person in Israel, well know for her etiquette expertise. Wrote few books at the subject and lectures. I added a link to the article about her in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Ovedc (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Leibovitz is a well known person. Also as a Wiki-woman I think that there are not enough articles about significant Israeli women. Keep. Laliv g (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laliv g, This discussion is about whether the subject of the article is notable. Notability, unfortunately, has a very specific and somewhat idiosyncratic meaning in Wikipedia. Famous, well-known or important are not the same as notable. Please see WP:N. The fact that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia has no bearing on the notability of this particular subject. What we're trying to determine in this discussion is if there is sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article about the subject. If you think such coverage exists, but is not currently in the article, you should feel free to add it to the article or mention it here. Notability is determined by the existence, not necessarily the inclusion, of such sources. Vexations (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations. I think many resources and sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources have been provided in the article to support the fact that this person is notable. According to WP:BIO "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;". As far as I can see, multiple resources have been provided to show that . Arielinson (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: Not sure if these contribute to the subject's notability or not, but here are some links to articles I found on Newspapers.com: [8][9][10]. Also see lengthy interview: "Ilene R. Prusher. (January 8, 1998). MAKING ISRAEL SAFE FOR THE CIVILIZED. The Jerusalem Report." I'd be curious what coverage exists (or not) in Hebrew language sources. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thsmi002, Two of those are by the same author, Charles W. Holmes, and their content is nearly identical. What I have an issue with is that they don't actually say much about the subject. If I were to try to summarize what the article says about her, I can find: she is soft-spoken; she aims to teach Israelis good manners; she attributes the lack of good manners to the fact that Israel is a country with a high proportion of immigrants that lacks a collective culture; she is the author of three books; she operates a training facility where she teaches etiquette. That's it. Vexations (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thsmi002 Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I think the coverage shows that the subject of this article is a person of significance. (Since the reason listed for deletion here is the notability of the person.)I have added one of your links as a resource to support the fact that she was an interior designer at her early life. (since "citation needed" was listed over there). I also added the Boston globe article to show that TLL trained business executive and politician as mentioned in the article. Arielinson (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leibovitz appears to be the president of the Israeli Confrérie de la Chaîne des Rôtisseurs per [11]. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thsmi002, Thank you for this comment. I've added that to her bio.Arielinson (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The cited sources discuss the subject of the article substantially. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No need to troll this article with petty peckering. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2018 (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.