Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Former user 16 (talk | contribs) at 06:52, 24 July 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main article: Judaism
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Judaism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
|
|
Judaism
- 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. Sr13 09:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians
- List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Topic before the names is discussed in other articles. But the main problem is the list of names. Most of them are unnoteable and do not have WP articles. They just have links to their personal websites and/or books that they are selling. In addition, a lot of the names listed are living persons, hence being listed there violates WP:BLP Yeshivish 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No stated standards for inclusion. Propaniac 13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Way, way too many redlinks. Seems like a way to get people into WP who otherwise wouldn't qualify as notable. Better served as a category. Realkyhick 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the BLP concerns are very great. Jon513 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure listcruft. Blueboy96 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete talk about indiscriminate... VanTucky (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this pointless propaganda and violation of WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA until such time as clearer criteria and reliable biographies and biographical information is available. IZAK 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and IZAK. --Redaktor 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above - listcruft, WP:SOAP, red links, etc. Oy vey! Bearian 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - there are some great Jewish names in here and just because they don't fit into the framework of either the rabbis or of many Christians that is no reason to delete them!
- Keep: I originally compiled the nucleus of this list. I don't feel strongly enough about it to fight for it, but I do believe that we need some consistent rules here. If this list is deleted, similar lists should be. If similar lists are retained, this one should be. I realize that the issue is an emotional one to many people, but most topics have an emotional side to somebody or other. Just because we are naming members of a religious community that many Jews, and some Christians, reject, is not a good enough reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. Wikipedia, after all, is supposed to be neutral. David Cannon 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I, personally, have no objection to the list because it includes Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians; I object to it because it has no listed standards for inclusion. This list could be amended with every single member of every single congregation for this faith. If it were a list of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians who were notable within that faith, and included explicit and objective standards for determining whether someone meets that description and could be included, and provided reliable sources that the people on the list met those standards, I would almost certainly vote to keep it. Propaniac 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what say we amend the list and restrict it to individuals who have biographies in Wikipedia? Persons who are not notable do not have, or at any rate ought not to have, a biographical article on Wikipedia. I'll take the initiative and remove from the list all the red links. Hopefully, the article will then qualify. David Cannon 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I, personally, have no objection to the list because it includes Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians; I object to it because it has no listed standards for inclusion. This list could be amended with every single member of every single congregation for this faith. If it were a list of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians who were notable within that faith, and included explicit and objective standards for determining whether someone meets that description and could be included, and provided reliable sources that the people on the list met those standards, I would almost certainly vote to keep it. Propaniac 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Most aren't notable the list is only there to try say there is a lot of messianic jews and christian hebrews i could list every crackpot with a website who believes in holocaust denial to try to make it seem as though there is many who believe that delusion stop spreading lies --Java7837 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you brought up the Holocaust, I feel that I really should mention that many "Hebrew Christians" were among its victims. (I don't know about "Messianic Jews", I don't think that movement was very popular yet.) Steve Dufour 01:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: In total agreement with David Cannon
- Delete Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians are two totally different things. I am speaking from a Christian point of view, BTW. Steve Dufour 00:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my two cents' worth. From my own experience, there are some branches of Christianity that are VERY close to some branches of Messianic Judaism, and some that are almost polar opposites. But either way, I don't see how this matters to this list - it is NOT a discussion of Messianic or Christian theology, but a list of individuals who associate themselves with one of the two movements. David Cannon 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll raise you two more cents. :-) The way I have heard the expression "Hebrew Christian" used would be for a person born and raised Jewish (hence a "Hebrew") who converts to Christianity and joins a main-stream Christian church. Most of the time I have heard the expression come up is because the person in question is advocating that other Jews also convert.
A "Messianic Jew" on the other hand is not a Christian, in the normal sense the word "Christian" is used. They follow the practices of Judaism while believing in Jesus as the Messiah. As Christianity developed it rejected Messianic Judaism, and in fact persecuted it so that the movement passed away and was only restarted in modern times.
So to me it doesn't make much sense to put the two things on the same list. Other people may disagree of course. Steve Dufour 04:27, 29 July 2007 (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.
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moshe Aryeh Friedman
- Moshe Aryeh Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This person seems to be noted only for doing one thing. It was a big thing, attending the notorious Iranian Holocaust denial conference as a Jew. However, that seems to be the only notable thing this person has ever done. The article is about that and about people's reaction to it, with a little non-notable filler thrown in. Steve Dufour 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This article has been through the wringer and has been brought up to the clearest possible standards of Wikipedia:Notability through multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources that cover multiple events for this individual over an extended period of time, all of which is clearly documented in the article. Alansohn 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To me the article seems to be about an individual, not a leader or spokesperson of any group (nor has he written any books), who goes around expressing his opinions. If he hadn't been invited to the conference in Iran I am sure that WP would not have an article on him. Steve Dufour 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clearly about the individual, not an organization, hence the article's title. If he hadn't attended this conference, there might have been a case to support the claim that he might not be notable. However, he was invited and he did attend,as noted in hundreds upon hundreds of articles nationwide. The article uses multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability based on multiple events. I can only address this individual and this article -- not what might have been -- and this article clearly meets the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 16:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check out WP:BLP1E. He seems to me to fall into the category of "persons notable for only one event". Steve Dufour 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To me the article seems to be about an individual, not a leader or spokesperson of any group (nor has he written any books), who goes around expressing his opinions. If he hadn't been invited to the conference in Iran I am sure that WP would not have an article on him. Steve Dufour 15:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well referenced with a history before the conference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is widespread significant independent reliable coverage of this person. Clearly passes WP:N. JulesH 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, he seems to be notable for more than just one thing, judging from the number of sources, so I'd say WP:BLP1E is invalid. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakish Keep He seems to have come on the stage mostly though his defence of the holocaust at the conference, but has had other activities such as his plan to work with Hamas for food aid to the west bank, and his activities with the Freedom party. I would say he's notable, but my keep is week because he is so controversial, keeping his article NPOV would be almost impossible unless it were just merged into another article about his colleagues. Basejumper 19:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He does not seem to be part of any group of colleagues. Steve Dufour 22:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know someone else whose article is almost impossible to keep NPOV? Er, OK, bad joke, but with a point. Notability determines whether or not an article is kept, not the threat of editing disputes. --Dhartung | Talk 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The difference is this person is living, and this article was started by editors who strongly disliked his politics as a policy violating attempt to insult him and show him exclusively in a bad light. (see the last deletion log) It was not until last week that we removed libel that had been up for a very long time, not to mention that with this gentleman, the Israeli press purposely published lies, as was reported in the American papers. (Ex. His wife divorced him, when really she says she supports everything he does. He denied the holocaust, when really he defended its reality, etc.) I think the fact that the article was started as a slam piece, and that there is the press of an entire country willing to slander him, it could be this man should not have his own article on wikipedia just for the potential libel issues alone. Basejumper 08:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Even for the one speech he would be notable, as I think every news source in the world carried a story. We do not delete articles because of POV problems. DGG (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep John Wilkes Booth was just some schmuck who shot at some other schmuck at Ford's Theatre. It was a big thing, but that seems to be the only notable thing Mr. Booth has ever done. --Action Jackson IV 00:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Eliyak T·C 01:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as he seems to have been notable beginning several years before the conference in question. Yes, that was the point at which coverage leaps, but I don't think BLP1E is meant to cover this sort of case. Being at the conference was not some fluke; it was a direct outgrowth of his career in activism, thus making said activism (more) notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable, sourced and improved since last time Taprobanus 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I don't think he deserves to be notable, he seems to have passed the BLP1E threshold and he exemplifies a notable fringe. HG | Talk 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As noted by last week's NYT. Wiki is no longer just an encyclopedia, but a reference to current events and people in the news. He has passed the threshold for notability as a contemporary figure. --Jayrav 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dhartung, DGG, and HG. I don't like him but he's notable. Bearian 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article contains very little information about him, mostly just about how people don't like
himhis going to Iran. Steve Dufour 22:57, 23 July 2007 (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.
- 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. --Coredesat 03:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish defense
- Jewish defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
article is origional research and article has no content. Not sure this is even a real concept. SefringleTalk 03:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 03:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (a) Used in this sense, it appears to be a neologism. Most Google hits for the phrase that don't find the JDL or the JDO seem to be organizations from Mandatory Palestine. (b) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Delete, unsourced neologism. 6SJ7 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to a disambiguation page, which is what it is. Bearian 16:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Author presupposes that "Jewish Defense is an umbrella term referring to the defense of the Jewish People through any and all means necessary" without any source for that idea. A term has to be well-known for there to be one meaning, let alone an ambiguity. Mandsford 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As far as I know (or informed by this article), this is not such a notable, self-standing concept. HG | Talk 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Little content and original research.Type 40 16:02, 25 July 2007 (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.
- 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 per not passing notability criteria. Until(1 == 2) 07:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zvi Block
I prodded this article some time ago (may 2006) and it was deleted. It was recreated soon after. I has no sources though there might be stuff in the links. There is nothing in the article which makes him notable though he is moderately accomplished. Jon513 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Jon513 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWhile Rabbi Block sounds like a real mensch, he doesn't seem particularly notable, and the article looks like it was copied and pasted from a press release about Rabbi Block. The extremely large number of red links is further indication to me that he's not notable. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Some of the links provided by רח"ק have convinced me that Rabbi Block is somewhat notable. He was included in a PBS chat-fest, he was interviewed by a local newspaper for commentary on the Israeli elections, etc. (I didn't read all the articles.) It's a close call, but I think Rabbi Block is sufficiently notable — but I advised רח"ק to incorporate those sources into the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you try googling him? See these links: [1][2][3]רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the Google hits seem to be copies of his Wikipedia article or the web sites of organizations with which he is affiliated, but take a look at WP:GOOGLEHITS and read my comment below. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you try googling him? See these links: [1][2][3]רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm torn. It seems he has influence in his kiruv circles, but I'm not certain that is enough. I don't see that he is anymore notable than a minister or rabbi from any good sized local congregation. Perhaps that is notable enough though. The article needs to be sourced quickly however, or it should be deleted simply on BLP grounds. My opinion comes down like this - If the spiritual leader of a congregation of 500 belongs on wikipedia, so doe R. Block, but only if we can get some sourced info. Basejumper 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be difficult to find sources concerning Rabbi Block on the internet itself because most Orthodox Jews abhor the internet and prohibit or at least discourage its usage. Just as it is difficult to find any information on the internet about any leading Orthodox Rabbi, for example there are only three hits on Google for Rabbi Shaul Brus, Rabbi Eli Chaim Swerdloff, Rabbi Avraham Yehoshua Bick, and other prominent leaders of Orthodoxy. You are welcome to search through the Google results on Zvi Block and source parts of the article on him. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources to establish Rabbi Block's notability don't have to be on the internet. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be difficult to find sources concerning Rabbi Block on the internet itself because most Orthodox Jews abhor the internet and prohibit or at least discourage its usage. Just as it is difficult to find any information on the internet about any leading Orthodox Rabbi, for example there are only three hits on Google for Rabbi Shaul Brus, Rabbi Eli Chaim Swerdloff, Rabbi Avraham Yehoshua Bick, and other prominent leaders of Orthodoxy. You are welcome to search through the Google results on Zvi Block and source parts of the article on him. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not satisfied that this guy has received "significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 02:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ProbableStrong Delete Reviewing the comments here by others I have decided its a good delete case due to notibility. The point made for keeping was, "most Orthodox Jews abhor the internet," hence the lack of currently available sources. This is true, however, most religious Zionists Orthodox use internet extensively, and Aish HaTorah kiruv workers use it extensively too. Seeing that this man is both, yet his presence on the internet is sparce has led to believe he probably is not notable to those outside his immediate circle of contact. (I stand by my statement about a church or synagogue leader of 500. If that deserves an article, I say keep) Basejumper 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep awaiting further sources--its not leading a synagogue that makes one notable, but what one does there, and the involvement with a number of significant activities together is what gives the notability in his case. But it would be good to have independent sources to show it. DGG (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Corpx and Malik Shabazz, it has been deleted before, and his circle of Orthodox do use the internet. --Jayrav 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it is unfair to make assumptions about his circle of Orthodox. I can tell you right now, that four-fifths of his students and congregants do NOT use the internet. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have just spent the past hour or so analyzing the first 150 Google search results on RZB's name. See User:Rachack/Zvi Block/Links for my analysis. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, they're all trivial mentions about him. To count for notability, an article from a reliable source has to be about him or mention him significantly. I dont think any of the links do that. Corpx 07:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- LA Weekly, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles, The Jewish News Weekly, Google News, and Google Books do not count as reliable sources? רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 09:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are, but the coverage they give him is trivial Corpx 09:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have skimmed though a good chunk of the links provided by Rachack. A few quotes in the paper in an article about something else is trivial. It is not the same and an article or book or something about him. Look at the article itself. Still even with all those links the vast majority of the article is still unsourced! I stand by my nomination. Jon513 09:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These links actually prove that he is NN. Thye are no article ABOUT him or things that he has written. And anyone, rabbi, yoga teacher, or marketing specialist, who gives weekly classes has 100's of anouncements. The mentions of him are trivial. --Jayrav 12:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)There also seems to be a strong COI since Rachack is Block's web designer and seeming publicist. --Jayrav 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Jayrav should provide evidence of his COI comment, and if it is true, I suggest a warning to the accused user and maybe maybe a temporary block of a week or a month. It seems that wikipedia Project Judaism has more than its share of COI problems, adverts, and POV pushing individuals and gangs. A consequence might cut down on such things. OTOH, if the charge is not true, it should definitely be removed as it could have negative consequences on the accused user in the future. (IE. People bringing up the false charge everytime he writes an article.) If the charge is false, I would suggest a temporary block on the accuser for incivility. These are just my suggestions, and I'm not an administrator so take 'em or leave 'em. Basejumper 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already declared my interest in this subject many times, but I feel that from a NPOV I am merely trying to establish his notability. The notability of RZB has already been establish in the previous afd for this article, although that discussion seems to have disappeared from the wiki, this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism#NN_rabbis reflects that former discussion. Notice, how I have never stated that I feel this article should be kept, I am merely commenting on some editor's assumptions that RZB is NN.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From the Block Beis Medrash webpage- "This page is powered by Blogger and was designed by Reuven Chaim Klein of Klein Web Designs." From the designers homepage and link on his wiki homepage - "Rachack (רח"ק) is the abbreviation of my Hebrew name, Reuven Chaim Klein (ראובּן חיים ק ליין)" --Jayrav 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I never denied that I have a COI. But remember Jayrav, over a year ago you asked crzrussian's opinion on the matter and remember what he said?רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If he did declare his interest than there's no improper coi, but i encourage people to declkare interest often. most edit wars on wikipedia and esp. wikproject judaism happen because of coi problems. Basejumper 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- רח"ק, the notability of this article has NOT "already been establish in the previous afd"; there was no former AFD. I placed a {{prod}} tag on it (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion) meaning that the article will be deleted unless anyone objects. It stayed there uncontested for five days, it was then deleted see logs). You later recreated it - which was allow (unlike articles that have gone through AFD, the recreation of a prodded article is like contesting its deletion and is permitted). Now we are discussing - for the first time in an AFD - the notability of the article . Jon513 10:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given the data and current WP policies, the subject doesn't pass the notability crtiera. HG | Talk 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per רח"ק, multiple Google searches and multiple newpaper articles establish notability.--Yeshivish 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not whether he is mentioned, but if he is featured or the subject of the article. If the mentions are not enough to give him a reasonably sized article that is not on violation of BLP rules (meaning nothing unsourced) he is not notable enough for an article. Basejumper 22:04, 24 July 2007 (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.
- 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. Daniel Case 05:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yaacov Perrin
- Yaacov Perrin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This person is totally not notable. Violates WP:NN. Many "rabbis" have delivered eulogies at the funerals of controversuial people, but that should not be the basis for launching articles about them which also violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. IZAK 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources about the person, only two about the quote, and they barely say anything at all. Jon513 10:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete quote does not make notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, since the only references concerning the subject appear to relate to a controversial statement at a eulogy, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). MPerel 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't prove its notability, as well there is no sources.--JForget 22:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there was a news article in the times--tho only a subsequent letter to the editor is listed, (Also art in the Daily New Feb. 28, 1994, p.6, and other papers--and about 40,000 ghits. Notable bigots are notable. DGG (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we don't even know that this guy actually exists. Letters to the editor are NOT proper sources. As per nom, it's unsourced soapboxing. <<-armon->> 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per <<-armon->> Abberley2 01:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Perrin may be notable, but his article doesn't even pretend to explain why. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:55, 25 July 2007 (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.
- 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. DES (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jen Taylor Friedman
- Jen Taylor Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This person is not notable. Being female proto-"clergy" is not significant (especially in Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism) so this violates WP:NN. Within Orthodox Judaism the function of sofer ("scribe") is reserved for male practitioners according to Jewish law and custom, so to imply that females can do so would violate WP:NOR. By its self-laudatory nature this article would also seem to violate WP:COI as well as WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. IZAK 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for above reasons. IZAK 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with IZAK. I would also add that as Friedman only coverage is because she is a novelty (female torah scribe) it is not enough (per WP:BLP) to have an article about her. The subject can be better dealt with in Sofer#Women and Sofrut. Jon513 11:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think there is some significant/novel information in this article, if only because it seems to contest the (POV?) description of the Sofer#Women and Sofrut piece. Indeed, that she acts as a sofer against Orthodox custom is what makes her work significant (and including this fact is hardly original research, contra IZAK above). Accordingly, I recommend moving her info into that piece of Women and Sofrut. Otherwise, she doesn't seem independently notable at this time. HG | Talk 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given there are a fair number of references in the mainstream press, I can't see how this constitutes original research. I also fail to see how it can be "self-laudatory" unless you're alleging that the subject of the article wrote it herself. As for the argument about who may act as a sofer for which documents, I think that is better described in Sofer than belaboured in AFD. Pseudomonas(talk) 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whether the Orthodox Jews consider her legitimate is besides the point--in fact, if this is controversial, it's all the more reason to keep the article, and include the discussion. The sources are sufficient. DGG (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep There is no question that she's notable. Her article has links to four independent news articles about her, including one that ran on the Associated Press, a national news service. If the article is "self-laudatory", edit it to change its tone; don't delete it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've spent some time cleaning up the article, improving it I hope. I would also note that, contrary to IZAK's comment, Friedman is neither "proto-'clergy'" nor is her vocation unremarkable for women in the liberal Jewish movements — she is one of five known soferot in the world. (And she is a traditional, halakhic Jew, FWIW, although she doesn't identify with any movement.) I would encourage those who favor deleting the article to read the latest version. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: non-trivial coverage in multiple independent verifiable sources --Pak21 14:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Seems to be notable enough. --Eliyak T·C 07:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the bulk of non-trivial coverage about this subject, passes WP:BIO well. RFerreira 20:15, 29 July 2007 (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.
- 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 All delete opnions cited notability as their sole reason. ources that pretty celarly establish notability were provided (and should be linked into the article). No one subsequently favored deeltion, althopugh the discussion laste a further 3 days. DES (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shlomo Porter
- Shlomo Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Run of the mill and non-notable rabbi. One of thousands of such people. Violation of WP:NN. This article reads like a self-advertisement and also violates WP:COI. IZAK 11:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for above reasons. IZAK 11:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two of the links for Baltimore Jewish Times articles don't work. It is hard to judge his notability when most of the references are no longer online. Jon513 11:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for above reasons. --Jayrav 16:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Abberley2 02:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep he is the director of a very notable orginization. If you say we shouldn't have this page, then the Henry Lehmann and Congregation Shomrei Emunah pages shouldn't be here. just my 2 cents. --Shuliavrumi 02:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rabbi Porter is not (as IZAK said) "a run of the mill ... Rabbi" He was one of the forerunners of the Baal teshuva movement is the 70s and also unique that is not Chabad. He has been the subject of a cover story (not a passing reference) of the Baltimore Jewish Times (here) as well as multiple other stories [4], [5] and has also often been quoted as a reputable opinion in matters relating to kiruv [6], [7], [8]. I assume that IZAK's concern of conflict of interest stem from the fact that IP edit are from baltimore however I don't think that is enough to base anything on as it is to be expected that there is greater interest about a Baltimore rabbi in baltimore. Also, while User:Crzrussian is no longer active he has expressed his opinion here that the article should be kept. Jon513 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Appears to have been the head of or leader in notable organizations. --Eliyak T·C 07:48, 29 July 2007 (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.
- 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. Sr13 09:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians
- List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Topic before the names is discussed in other articles. But the main problem is the list of names. Most of them are unnoteable and do not have WP articles. They just have links to their personal websites and/or books that they are selling. In addition, a lot of the names listed are living persons, hence being listed there violates WP:BLP Yeshivish 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No stated standards for inclusion. Propaniac 13:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Way, way too many redlinks. Seems like a way to get people into WP who otherwise wouldn't qualify as notable. Better served as a category. Realkyhick 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the BLP concerns are very great. Jon513 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure listcruft. Blueboy96 20:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete talk about indiscriminate... VanTucky (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this pointless propaganda and violation of WP:NOT#PROPAGANDA until such time as clearer criteria and reliable biographies and biographical information is available. IZAK 04:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and IZAK. --Redaktor 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above - listcruft, WP:SOAP, red links, etc. Oy vey! Bearian 19:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - there are some great Jewish names in here and just because they don't fit into the framework of either the rabbis or of many Christians that is no reason to delete them!
- Keep: I originally compiled the nucleus of this list. I don't feel strongly enough about it to fight for it, but I do believe that we need some consistent rules here. If this list is deleted, similar lists should be. If similar lists are retained, this one should be. I realize that the issue is an emotional one to many people, but most topics have an emotional side to somebody or other. Just because we are naming members of a religious community that many Jews, and some Christians, reject, is not a good enough reason to exclude it from Wikipedia. Wikipedia, after all, is supposed to be neutral. David Cannon 10:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I, personally, have no objection to the list because it includes Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians; I object to it because it has no listed standards for inclusion. This list could be amended with every single member of every single congregation for this faith. If it were a list of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians who were notable within that faith, and included explicit and objective standards for determining whether someone meets that description and could be included, and provided reliable sources that the people on the list met those standards, I would almost certainly vote to keep it. Propaniac 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what say we amend the list and restrict it to individuals who have biographies in Wikipedia? Persons who are not notable do not have, or at any rate ought not to have, a biographical article on Wikipedia. I'll take the initiative and remove from the list all the red links. Hopefully, the article will then qualify. David Cannon 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I, personally, have no objection to the list because it includes Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians; I object to it because it has no listed standards for inclusion. This list could be amended with every single member of every single congregation for this faith. If it were a list of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians who were notable within that faith, and included explicit and objective standards for determining whether someone meets that description and could be included, and provided reliable sources that the people on the list met those standards, I would almost certainly vote to keep it. Propaniac 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Most aren't notable the list is only there to try say there is a lot of messianic jews and christian hebrews i could list every crackpot with a website who believes in holocaust denial to try to make it seem as though there is many who believe that delusion stop spreading lies --Java7837 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you brought up the Holocaust, I feel that I really should mention that many "Hebrew Christians" were among its victims. (I don't know about "Messianic Jews", I don't think that movement was very popular yet.) Steve Dufour 01:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: In total agreement with David Cannon
- Delete Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians are two totally different things. I am speaking from a Christian point of view, BTW. Steve Dufour 00:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my two cents' worth. From my own experience, there are some branches of Christianity that are VERY close to some branches of Messianic Judaism, and some that are almost polar opposites. But either way, I don't see how this matters to this list - it is NOT a discussion of Messianic or Christian theology, but a list of individuals who associate themselves with one of the two movements. David Cannon 04:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll raise you two more cents. :-) The way I have heard the expression "Hebrew Christian" used would be for a person born and raised Jewish (hence a "Hebrew") who converts to Christianity and joins a main-stream Christian church. Most of the time I have heard the expression come up is because the person in question is advocating that other Jews also convert.
A "Messianic Jew" on the other hand is not a Christian, in the normal sense the word "Christian" is used. They follow the practices of Judaism while believing in Jesus as the Messiah. As Christianity developed it rejected Messianic Judaism, and in fact persecuted it so that the movement passed away and was only restarted in modern times.
So to me it doesn't make much sense to put the two things on the same list. Other people may disagree of course. Steve Dufour 04:27, 29 July 2007 (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.
Deletion review
Categories