Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoni Assia (2nd nomination)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Assia

[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)

Not independently notable from his company. First AfD closed as "keep" but the first user to comment was blocked for socking soon after, second user blocked soon after for WP:PAID violations, third user links to search results full of unreliable sources, interviews, and mentions, and the fourth is only a "weak keep". Џ 13:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. 23:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 109.41.66.146 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well-sourced and notable.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Can totally understand Џ's line of reasoning and find it a harder case. Definitely not well-sourced, but maybe barely passing. And while usually associated with company, seems to be known and covered independently (in scene: 1, 2,...). Don't have enough experince with business (executives) yet, though, to cast a "definitive" vote...--Ruhri Jörg 15:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. My !vote is qualified weak as I'm actually missing a source that really discusses him in depth (though several sources come close (and this university newsletter probably is in-depth - but not of a quality I'd want to use), and one could built a fairly lengthy bio off of what I do see) - but my hunch is I'm missing this in all of the crud (over 210 google news hits in English, also coverage in Hebrew, a few books hits - the customer facing business gets covered and Assia gets interviewed as an expert, etc.). This guy has been receiving coverage for a decade and a half (mid-2000s) for a number of different ventures - eToro, crypto currencies, his wife's iAngels venture (where coverage tends to mention him), and a smattering of other ventures, board seats and roles. The company he founded (and is the CEO of) is fairly significant - e.g. they just had a 100 million dollar round ([1][2]). He's definitely high profile in terms of media coverage (which generates alot of crud sources). Based on his business/venture records and the amount of hits I'm seeing I do have an expectation that coverage is out there.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that makes him notable independent of the company, though. Maybe redirect there? - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has coverage that is independent of eToro (e.g. crypto currencies, iAngels, various board seats and roles in other companies/ventures). Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not good BLP coverage - passing mentions in eToro publicity pushes and crypto blogs. This is not in any manner the level of sourcing to WP:BLP standards - it's cobbled-together synthesis at best - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to eToro might be appropriate, though - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Not independently notable of the company, significant RS coverage not found. Please also see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1-555-confide. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Gerard. Can't see much notability here. Number 5 7 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per David Gerard. The missing source that discusses the subject "in depth" is what is necessary to pass notability. Otr500 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2019 (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.