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. This debate comes down to deciding if BLP1E applies to this subject, or not. As the policy does not have a bright line against which to measure the article, we need to place roughly equal weight to the arguments on either side. Given that some of the keep arguments are "weak keep", and one mentions BLP1E concerns, the stronger case here is to delete. Kevin (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Teitel[edit]

Yaakov Teitel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I removed the speedy, but am unsure whether or not the article should be retained per WP:NOT#NEWS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a bona fide serial killer would seem to be notable, I also understand that he's confessed but not yet been found guilty? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also while it does seem to be a slam dunk, Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) does recommend "serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured, since doing so not only risks violating WP:BLP, but also may not adequately satisfy notability guidelines." Although again, it looks a pretty open and shut case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nom is only posing a question, we should continue on Talk

Suggest speedy closing because of misstarting (WP:SNOW if you like) (stroked, see below) -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: DePiep (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Second close. AfD nominations should not be taken lightly. A nomination needs a proper rationale for why an article fails to comply with policy. Fences&Windows 03:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a possible WP:NOT#NEWS as the rationale. I would not object to a speedy close, if there is consensus that this is a case of WP:SNOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fences and Windows' comment is quite incorrect- AfD is for discussion of deletion, period. If it's blatantly clear that an article should be deleted, then PROD or some CSD criterion is appropriate. If a nominator has concerns as to the notability of a subject, but isn't entirely sure if it should be deleted, then AfD is an appropriate, though not the best, venue. I don't think this is even the case, however; the nominator had a serious concern with regards to a shaky deletion rationale. In other words, it's a controversial delete. The reason we have AfD here instead of on talk pages is to solicit the opinion of the wider community. I believe in this case, that mission has been accomplished. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mendaliv: (Off discussion, but yes about process here): "some CSD" is no entrance for a PROD. The point was, that the nominator did not state a proposal to delete, let alone a criterium for deletion. Therefore the proposed speedy keep was, with the other facts, correct. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per wikipedia:Speedy keep, reason #1: nom does not propose deletion, and agrees with speedy keep. (Use of WP:SNOW not preferred). Discussion can be done at the regular Talk. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Stroked; motivated my Keep below) -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:ONEEVENT, for which the topic hasn't even been tried, let alone convicted yet. Example of extreme WP:RECENTISM. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS landmine. Possible transwiki to Wikinews owing to extreme recentism. It's way too soon to evaluate whether this will be a non-event or grow into something bigger with lasting historical significance. Ray^Talk 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot transwiki to Wikinews due to license incompatability. See WP:Wikinews. Fences&Windows 00:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:1E or more appropriately per WP:BLP1E, which overrides WP:N. Most of the individual events that this individual allegedly confessed to having committed are not notable. So, at best, a redirect to Zeev Sternhell#Attack. The confession, in particular, needs to be supported by more reliable sources before we can uncontroversially accept it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mendaliv: please specify which sources, now present in the page, are not RS (enough to drop the page)? -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread with me, Mendaliv: "1E" ONEEVENT and "Most of the individual events ...". Contradiction.

• • Additionally, I'd like to comment that if WP:BLP1E isn't considered, then WP:BLP certainly must be. The content of the article at present indicates that knowledge of the facts in this case is in flux, and that the subject himself is making implausible statements to the police. WP:BLP says, "We must get the article right." While we're limited by what's available, and moreover by the interest of authors in updating the article when new information becomes available, we have a responsibility to do no harm. WP:BLP is very explicit in this regard. Notability, on the other hand, is vague and measured by a poor objective means. And even so, notability is neither a necessary nor sufficient criterion for inclusion of material. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"knowledge of the facts in this case is in flux" (further on you write about the same, but not the same) is not mentioned in WP:NOT#NEWS. It only means we do now know all, but that is no reason to keep it out here. In fact: knowledge and encyclopedia do develop. Nothing PROD in here. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: ^^ as above - I'm not going to type out all the wikilinks again. Article needed when verdict is in and history has had a chance to digest. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP:1E. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are many separate actions here, BLP1E does not apply. Hundreds of news articles on this already; search under Jack Teitel, not Yaakov Teitel (I'll do a redirect if it's not deleted). If it's deleted now, it will be back -- might as well cope with it now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree with the above. I feel that WP:BLP1E does apply, therefore Delete. Crafty (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article focuses negatively on one event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, it's been reopened. Good, speedy deletion was too hasty. Delete. I disapproved of the original nomination as it gave only a vaguewave to policy - we must give proper reasons for deletion, not shorthand. WP:NTEMP and WP:NOTNEWS guide us that a short burst of news reports is not enough for notability. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) shows that we can have biographies about people only known as the perpetrators of a crime or series of crimes, but also that we need to be wary of creating articles before guilt is proven. I think criteria #3 of N/CA, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event" will be eventually proven to be met by this case, as a lone domestic Jewish terrorist in Israel isn't a commonplace occurrence, but of course I don't have a crystal ball. As the content of the article is already mentioned appropriately within Jewish religious terrorism and Ze'ev Sternhell#Attack, there's no need for a merge. No prejudice against recreation if and when he is convicted and notability of the man and the case are shown by persistent indepth coverage. Fences&Windows 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning to weak keep now. I think he meets the criteria in WP:N/CA. Coverage in the Israeli and international press is still ongoing and indepth. New info that Shin Bet tried to recruit him in 2000 adds another angle:[1]. Coverage in Australian news today calls him "the new face of Israeli extremism".[2] It is widely reported that he has confessed to a series of crimes, diminishing BLP concerns. Fences&Windows 14:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources for the confession. A perpetrator of a single terrorist attack isn't unusual in Israel , but this is apparently much more than that, and I think it is fairly clear from the material already present that there will be more than a short burst of news & that it will be part of the historical record. BTW, if a terrorist attack would be notable elsewhere, why shouldn;t it be so in israel--simply because they have so many? Thjat makes them the more notable, not the less. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think your rationale is thoughtful, DGG, I'm sorry in that I have to disagree here. Part of your keep rationale seems grounded in it being clear from the material that this person will remain significant beyond this one event; I see a hint of WP:XBALL in that logic. And moreover, the logic in WP:RECENTISM, and moreover WP:DEADLINE clearly applies: do we need an article about this individual before his trial and conviction? If not, I think it's appropriate for us to exercise more discretion. Notability guidelines go both ways- while they typically identify things that belong in the encyclopedia, things not identified by them routinely belong, and things that are identified by them do not necessarily belong. As we are dealing with a WP:BLP and moreover a WP:BLP1E situation, I'd argue that this is an exception to the rule. As to the Israel-Palestine connection, I would suggest that the problem lies not in that terror is common, but that both terror and Israel-Palestine are, broadly construed, very controversial, even among reliable sources. As such, WP:RS needs to be put in overdrive for this topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again: please Mendaliv, what is the problem with the current RS? Then, I agree, Mendaliv, we do not need WP:XBALL, WP:RECENTISM or WP:DEADLINE. Without these, the facts are relevant enough. DGG states that the even outcome of the juridical steps do not matter for notability. Correct with me. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and possibly recreate in the future. WP:BLP1E applies to some degree, but the case is far too early in the judicial process for us to have an article on the alleged perpetrator. While he has confessed to the police, he also has been unable to meet with his lawyer who claims that Teitel is suffering from mental illness. Userfy the article, let it incubate, and when more details become known it can be recreated. It's possible by the time this AfD is over, enough information will be available that deletion will be unnecessary. AniMate^draw 00:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Part of an ongoing story so deletion seems unwise. BLP1E does not apply since there are multiple relevant crimes he has confessed to. The fact that the individual may be suffering from mental illness is interesting but ultimately irrelevant. Given his confessions and given the massive coverage in reliable sources, a do-no-harm calculus on BLP shows that deletion would not accomplish anything. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. I have to say I'm not keen on the practice of immediately nominating for deletion articles on people in the news as soon as they've been created; it's almost always better to leave it a few days so it can develop and notability, or the absence of it, can be more clearly judged. In this case, while there are WP:BLP1E issues, there's also a pretty strong claim to notability - if the claims about him are true, this guy's definitely notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we should keep this article for now as the story develops; we can always delete it later if it turns out to have no long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete it later if it can always better to leave it a few days so it can develop and notable as a terrorist. On the practice of immediately notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we can always deletion articles on the practice of it, can be more clearly judged. In this article for deletion article for deletion articles on people in the practice of immediately nominating for delete it a few days delete it later if it turns out to have to say I'm not keen created; it's also a pretty strong claims about to have no long-term notability, or the story develop and notability.ow as they've been created; it's almost always better to leave it a few days so it can develops; we should keep this article for deletion article for now as the news as soon as there are BLP1E issues, the news as soon as the story develop and notability, or the absence of immediately nominating for delete it later if it turns out to have it a few days so it turns out to have no long-term notable as a terrorist. On the news as so it turns out to have to say I'm notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we should keep this guy's definitely notability.tability.ld keep this article for now as the news as the story develop and notability, or there are BLP1E issues, there are BLP1E issues, the story develops; we should keep this guy's definitely nominating for now as soon as soon as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we should keep this guy's delete it turns out to have no long-term notable as a terrorist. On this case, while there are true, this case, while there's also a pretty strong claim to notability - if the clearly judged. In this case, while there are true, there's also a pretty strong claim to leave it a few days better to leave it a few days soon articles on people in the practice of immediately notability - if there's also a pretty strong claim to notability, or the absence of immediately nominating for delete it later if it turns out to have no long-term notability.. In this case, while there are true, this guy's definitely notability - if the story develops; we can always better to leave it a few days better to leave no long-term notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I think we should keep this articles on the practice of immediately notable as a terrorist. On that basis, I this guy's definitely nominating for deletion article for now as the story develop and notability. 165.91.12.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC). [reply]

Huh? ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was written by a chatbot. Are bots allowed to !vote now?Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, they shouldn't be ¬voting. I've struck out that comment. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 02:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no proof of notability. WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Speculation over guilt or not is not the same as a news story. This would also fall under One Event. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how it's possible to make (or take) assertions of "no proof" seriously, when everything in the article is referenced and a news search (here) shows hundreds of results. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: Wiki does not need to proof guilt (the judge will take care of that). Without CRYSTAL ball the facts are already here: confessions, accusations, reports, police statements. The 12 year list of related crimes, and the choises in life of Teitel: already noteworthy today. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - BLP1E does not apply. Teital's name has been tied not to just one event, but to several very notable events including the 2009 Tel Aviv gay centre shooting, the attack against prof. Zeev Sternhell and the booby-trap against the Messianic Jewish family (not as notable as the other two, but still notable[3][4][5]). According to WP:N/CA#Perpetrators, he should have an article based on #2 and to a certain extent #3. There is still the question of NOTNEWS. However, this article will most certainly outgrow NOTNEWS when charges are filed against him; and if charges are not filed, it'll still outgrow NOTNEWS, but more in the style of how falsely accused are notable. Rami R 08:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete until there is a conviction. - Let's try not to run afoul of BLP issues, those accused of crimes are generally to be presumed innocent. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not an issue. We have reliable sources discussing the confession and evidence. That just means that in the article we don't say "Teitel did X" but rather "Teitel is accused of X". Moreover, even if he is found not guilty he will almost certainly be notable enough for an article still. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE - This article is so blatent in it being factually incorrect and extremely biased by its un-neutral POV, that is deserves a Speedy Deletion. Even if there is a conviction, the article still will have a un-neutral POV. --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is so factually incorrect and biased, why don't you just fix it? Hint: Maybe it's because the article is already neutral, and all info in it is properly sourced? Shouting "BIAS!!1" w/o pointing out any bias is not very helpful. Rami R 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know something that the press and the Israeli police don't know? Fences&Windows 02:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this discussion has only now been added to the AfD log. Rami R 08:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I used Twinkle... not sure what went awry.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Elen of the Roads and Ottava Rima. Previously NN person being a suspect has put him in the headlines, but not into an encyclopedia. --Shuki (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a week, no change in status of the case, no developments, except for some other innocent people harassed by police and then released. Usually, these kinds of cases develop daily as more material is released and people come forward with info, in this case the police have nothing new which is very surprising. No ballistics revelations from his alledged gun cache, no witnesses putting two and two together after seeing Teitel's face at the scene, etc... --Shuki (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki, are you an expert in this field that you can say what "usually" happens? Does a case like this even happen often enough for there to be a "usually"? According to google news, in the past day alone 8 news reports about Teitel have been published,[6] so the case is still very clearly developing. Also, suggesting that the case is only notable if the suspect is actually guilty (as you appear to be doing), is ridiculous. Teitel is notable merely for being suspect. If Teitel will not be notable for his criminal activity, he'll be notable for being falsely accused. We just don't know which yet. Rami R 22:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is neither sufficient nor necessary for inclusion; it just establishes a rebuttable presumption that a subject is appropriate for inclusion. Furthermore, if this person is not found guilty, WP:BLP1E becomes all the more significant. And frankly, as you say, the story is still developing; WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DEADLINE. Let's wait until the facts have coalesced a bit more, until we're beyond information extracted by the police. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8 whole articles from around the world? Pssshh. Apparently, nothing worthwhile because this article has not been updated in about six days since just after the story broke. Of two minor intermediate edits since then, one was a mere wl, the other information included in the same sentence as another apparently dubious claim. And your saying that being a suspect infers lasting notability? Guilty forever with an asterisk. I would think that, in general, it is a human right that when/if you are acquitted, you can go back to being a nobody. Please show us numerous WP examples of suspects previously NN who've retained articles in the encyclopedia after being acquitted. One of the most recent cases I can remember is the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal with AIPAC. Two employees were indicted, one still has an article rightfully, the other does not. --Shuki (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask and you shall recieve: Clarence Harrison, Brenton Butler case, James Joseph Richardson, Stephen Bingham, Sally Clark and Brandon Mayfield. Enzo Tortora is also primarily known for being falsely accused, but not exclusively. Searching in Category:Living people for "falsely accused" gives 853 results, although this is of-course an imperfect metric.

Also, let's not be naive. With 384-1,532 news reports (384 for "Jack Teitel", 197 for "Yaakov Teitel", 1532 for Teitel alone), Teitel is not going to go back to being a nobody, with or without a wikipedia article. Rami R 23:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a nitpicker, but the news ghits is more accurately 78 for "Jack Teitel", 65 for "Yaakov Teitel" and 173 for "Teitel". Remember, ghits are estimates until you reach the final page. Not that ghits are an accepted means for establishing notability or non-notability, and not that I'm drawing any conclusions based off those figures.

Also, I think we're deviating down the wrong path of argument here; for starters, none of those cases are presently unfolding. We don't have a deadline, and as there are overarching WP:BLP concerns, is there any actual harm in waiting until things are a little more solidified? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it's not so much a question of harm as it is a question of need. The district prosecuter's office has now stated that they will press charges against Teitel, so it's pretty clear that Teitel will be undisputably notable (if he isn't already) and will need a wiki-article. Why bother postpone the inevitable? Rami R 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XBALL, perhaps? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does not apply. XBALL itself states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" - by this point a trial is almost certain to take place, and I don't think that anyone is disputing that that is a notable event. Rami R 08:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mendaliv, let's reread what you wrote related to NOT#NEWS: "none of those cases are presently unfolding" you wrote above, and earlier above: "knowledge of the facts in this case is in flux". Contradiction. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what I meant, DePiep; those other cases of people falsely accused aren't comparable situations. That I feel a certain clarity of the facts is needed before we can really draw any useful information from the sources, if anything, goes to support that point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean the "other cases" are those in the Clarence Harrison-list above, and not the current accusations here. So I stroked. Remains: 1. the crimes (like Tel-Aviv and prof. Sternhell, already in WP for some time) are "stable". 2. a flux or not may help to decide whether it's news. But this topic is not news only (that we do NOT). It's relevant already. -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - BLP1E does not apply. Multiple incidents.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 1E nor BLP1E? Do not apply: multiple crimes are brought in against Teitel, multiple confessions (correct or incorrect), and committed over a period of 12 years. That is not a single event, on these three different counts. Notable events? Yes. At least two were already present on Wikipedia before his arrest: Tel Aviv gay shooting and prof. Sternhell. Serious accusations? Sure, attacks, murder, an arsenal found at his home, hate-spreading. So the acts are notable, and are related. Next point: should the person get a page (instead of isolated pages of some crimes)? Yes, especially because of the WP more strict lines of Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) WP:C/NA (strange, btw, that little editors here mention this guideline). Not only does this person string the events of 12 yrs together, but also the backgrounds are notable. An arsenal at home. Moved to West Bank from US, motivation-related. Associating himself (through an, as yet unproven, confession) with the anti-gay attack in Tel-Aviv. This person, in accordance with WP:N/CA#Perpetrators #2 and #3, is noteworthy already. And 'terrorism' is not a juridical term, so not mentioned that much, but there is the political aspect: Honenu has taken up the defense of Teitel for political reasons. So the acts and the person are noteworthy. This was not an incident. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you're calling WP:N/CA into effect, why aren't we considering the clause about consideration for non-convicted persons? And why aren't we considering WP:BLP as a whole? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no "BLP as a whole" issue. BLP only states that everything needs to be properly sourced and that lesser known individual's articles should not contain the details of their subjects' non-notable aspects of their life (e.g. private life). Everything in the article is sourced and on topic. Rami R 08:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRami R, thanks for the articles, some were interesting. I would delete some of those as well because not every crime in the world should have an article on WP. Who decides which parents who killed children is notable or not? DePiep, should any mention be made that all his confessions were made without the presence of a lawyer? Honenu is known for doing a lot of pro-bono work, most of which is NN. Anyway, I went to the Israeli WP and surprisingly, and especially given that it has somewhat different and more liberal left members, there is no separate article and only a fleeting mention in three other articles. It also looks like an article was speedied because there is no page in the deletion log. --Shuki (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Rami R said here. And: "considering consideration" per WP:N/CA? He has confessed, he is the connection between several crimes, and his name is published by the police. What consideration would be needed with facts like these? For sure, if this case collapses before the judges, that would be added, maybe removing his name into X, but a notable case it would still be, albeit for changed reasons. Mention that lawyers were not present? I'd say go ahead, if its in the RS's (btw, such edit would not decide on this AfD, imo). The Hebrew wiki community have their own guidelines & discussions. Our WP:'s are consensus for the English only. I think we rarely do cross-interwiki-discussions. -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2009 (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.