Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Hirschfield


 * 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 Speedy keep.  Since the nomination, plenty of sources and information that assert that person is notable were subsequently added. No arguments to delete besides nominator. (non-admin closure) Maashatra11 (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Brad Hirschfield

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article is definitely written like a public relations release or advertisement. I was going to try and rearrange the text to make it more encyclopedic, but then realized that there really isn't any notability here. This is no criticism of Brad Hirschfield; many very good people don't have Wikipedia articles about them. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A highly prominent rabbi, his notability is spelled out explicitly in the article, especially in the cleaned-up version by User:Joe407.  As the article already states, he is a leader of of a significant organization, CLAL, the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. Repeatedly listed on the Newsweek "most influential rabbis" list (which is in turn discussed in other sources such as The Atlantic .  A subject of a Frontline documentary (mentioned in the article), and a 2009 NPR story.  Constantly quoted on all sorts of topics--more than 200 hits at Google News archives.  I can go on, but this really ought to be enough.  The article still needs some cleaning but notability shouldn't be an issue here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos, on condition that the third-party sources s/he quotes are incorporated into the article. Yoninah (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable and adequately referenced. Possibly needs work on style, but that’s not an AfD issue, is it?--Technopat (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Arxiloxos, notability is more obvious now that refs have been added by Arxiloxos. Maashatra11 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.