Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller


 * 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 no consensus although latter participants reflect that the updated article probably has a consensus to keep. Cool Hand Luke 05:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaim Dov Keller

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not fit the criteria of WP:BIO PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  00:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  00:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources giving significant coverage are found Corpx 01:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Chocolatepizza 01:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The lack of reliable sources is a major concern here for this subject. There are also notability issues as well. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. Yehoishophot Oliver 03:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. The article claims notability, but without any citations. Fails WP:BIO as it is. May even be a speedy delete — Becksguy 05:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * D - non notable person, WP:BIO. Speedy, snowball close, anyone?  G iggy\Talk 06:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep until the procedure actually mentioned at WP:BIO has been gone through. Namely, it says only that If the article can not be improved or is clearly not an appropriate subject for Wikipedia, then it could be nominated for AfD. No one has said the article cannot be improved. The name gets nearly 500 Google hits. Absence of sources is not sufficient for deletion here. Charles Matthews 07:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added references, and expanded the article. Please reconsider votes based solely on the absence of references. Charles Matthews —The preceding  signed but undated.


 * Further comment: I'm glad to see the article transformed into a longer piece. There is clearly a NPOV discussion going on about it, but as far as I'm concerned Keller is clearly enough a notable figure of controversy, and there should be an article here on those grounds. Charles Matthews 11:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Only 62 unique ones once you exclude wikipedia with many of them mirrors of wikipedia that do not mention the word wikipedia in them. --PinchasC |  £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, with all due respect, the absence of sources is grounds for deletion, per WP:BIO: "Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable using reliable sources...". Also see WP:NOTE.  In this case, the subject may be notable, but reliable secondary sources are needed to establish that. Further, if your interpretation of that clause in WP:BIO was correct, no article could ever be deleted, because any article could be improved, except for obvious non-encyclopedic ones. At this point, the article is essentially the same as when it was created on April 4th. There are zero references. It was nominated for WP:PROD for the same reason (WP:BIO) on July 30, and then contested. If people want to keep this article, the solution is to find sources and place them, and this can be done as the debate continues. I saw one case where consensus changed from delete to keep because of the work done on sourcing during the debate. — Becksguy 15:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes a few seconds to find other references, to "Chaim Keller", or "Rabbi Keller". Also, with due respect, the guy can be presumed notable enough from 62 references. I came here out of particular concern on the proposal to close by invoking 'snowball'. Snowballing votes compiled over a period of at most seven hours strikes me as particularly a worry. WP:BIO says debates will run for 5 days, not that they will be closed while you are asleep. Also the full citation runs as follows Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable using reliable sources, and, if the subject is living, we must follow the policy at our policy for biographies of living people. So it must, but simply killing the debate when less than 10% of its alloted span has run is not an 'ultimate' test at all.
 * Charles Matthews 07:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do any of the sources give "significant coverage"? Also, I agree that Snowball Delete should not be an option for AFDs, so as to give contributers more time to respond Corpx 07:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles? Leave me alone.  Stop stalking my AfD contributions.  And stop making stuff up - nothing you've said asserts any reason to keep the article.  I'd expect better from an ArbCom member...  G iggy\Talk 07:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:STALK: Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption. Not doing that. Valid criticism of your wish to snowball discussions in a few hours is shared by someone else on this page. And I've referenced the article. Charles Matthews 07:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep 1 As the head of a prominent yeshiva (Telshe yeshiva (Chicago)) he is notable. 2 The web is wrong place to look for citations of rosh yeshivas; try looking in the Jewish Press (not replicated on the Web) --Redaktor 00:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- although, per the deletion policy, lack of sources is valid reason for deletion, I agree with Charles's other points. The subject is notable, and the sources he has provided are enough to make the article keep-able. -- Boricua  e  ddie  00:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this notable rabbi (many articles about rabbis start small and are built up, so it's no excuse to delete them without asking for editorial input first.) Rabbi Chaim Dov Keller is probably one of the best known rabbis in Chicago at the present time. He is not a congregational rabbi, but serves as the co-rosh yeshiva ("dean") of the largest yeshiva in Chicago. He is mentioned in key articles relating to Haredi Judaism. A Google search for "Chaim Dov Keller" yields over 470 hits (a large number for such a person in the world of Orthodox Judaism) many connected to numerous and significant publications in the world of American Orthodox Judaism and particularly Haredi Judaism for which he is leading spokesman and scholar with Agudath Israel of America. He co-heads the Telshe yeshiva (Chicago) and he has played a major role is speaking out on the issue of the messianic claims concerning Rabbi M.M. Schneerson of Lubavitch, see Controversies of Chabad. Note that it is (mostly) the pro-Chabad editors who are (pushing for) voting to delete...Wikipedia is not chabad.org! IZAK 07:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this a claim of WP:CANVASSING? — Becksguy 22:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 07:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Google hits do not measure notability, as it must be provided through reliable sources.   If anyone can cite any of these sources, I'll gladly change my vote Corpx 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Coprx: The point I was making was that those Google hits refer to reliable articles and sources. I am now working on bringing some of those into the article. IZAK 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again: Take a look at the article now. IZAK 12:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable rabbi and rosh yeshiva, no need to delete a stub that just needs expanding. -- M P er el 08:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep references have since been added. --Shuki 08:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep He is very notable and the article is fine as a stub. --Jayrav 14:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks to Charles Matthews for jumping in and kicking this AfD up into a real discussion.  On the face of it, it now appears that there are sufficient references to make Keller notable.  However, I am not sure that the references are credible.  Keller is a religious fundamentalist, much like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson.  Keller’s statement about a gay student association (it’s an “abomination”) could well have come out of Falwell’s mouth. Fundamentalists (of all religions) believe that they are right, have the only true religion, and everyone else is wrong, regardless.  These people are highly intolerant and have used advocacy journalism and other means (including extreme means) to push their agenda. Neutral and objective reporting is not true in many parts of the world (including the US — e.g. Fox News). Since we are supposed to cite independent, objective and reliable sources, I cannot agree that notability has been established here, until the sources have been run through various human rights and watchdog organizations, and with publications doing the kind of work that FAIR Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting does.  So no, I’m not changing my recommendation yet. But I withdraw mention of a speedy—this one may take more than 5 days. — Becksguy 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Becksguy: You are making a huge error. Keller is not like Falwell or the others you quote. He is not concerned with making pronouncements to the world at all. Rabbi Keller is only working within the orbit of Haredi Jewry and expressing it's views vis-a-vis other JEWISH Orthodox groups. The issue of gays is not Keller's invention because ALL of Orthodoxy, be it Haredi or modern Orthodox condemns it since it violates a Biblical commandment that is part of the Orthodox belief system. So Rabbi Keller's significance, especially as a living rabbi has more to do with internal struggles and it is no use killing the messenger if you don't like the message. If you hate Keller you will hate all Orthodox Jews because essentially he speaks as a quintessential Orthodox rabbi. You seem to miss a point here that there is an additional hatred of Keller by the Chabad people because he has denounced their false messianism by their worshipping Rabbi Schneerson as the messiah and even as a god, and I suspect which is why they tried to get this article about him prodded and are now pushing to have him dumped altogether from Wikipedia, but all this maneovering cannot cover up the basic truths and issues and what Keller represents so that hopefully you do not misunderstand what is happening here. IZAK 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, and seems to be guilty of WP:SYNTH as well (there is no record of his views…) Avi 04:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Avi: What you are saying is not clear. There are segments quoting entire parts of articles written by Rabbi Keller, and since when is it "WP:SYNTH" to quote newspapers and magazines read by Haredim that quote the subject of this article? IZAK  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs) 09:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable among the Ultra-orthodox Jewish community and probably also outside it, especially for his anti-Messianic stance against Chabad, as mentioned above. Sources not available on the Intarnet but are probably available in Printed religious Jewish magazines. No good reason to delete. Nahum 04:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can cite sources that are not on the internet, as long as they're verifiable Corpx 04:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the only controversial section and that which lacks sources is "Views." This section may need to be deleted or revised. No reason to delete the whole article. -- Nahum 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All the refs in the article are essays written by him or articles that only give him mention in passing, neither of which asserts notability Corpx 05:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Corpx: You are wrong. Many of the articles are written by Rabbi Keller. Secondly he is quoted in many other articles directly. Thirdly you are being ridiculous when you say "You can cite sources that are not on the internet, as long as they're verifiable" which is like saying that "you will need sources for a source" -- either a source is a source or it isn't and it is not for you decide that now Wikipedians need to provide "double sources"! Finally, even if statements are made in passing, they may still be the only way that the notabality of Orthodox and certainly Haredi rabbis can be determined since so few of them actually write Haredi "public opinion" pieces in secular mediums or the general media. IZAK 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per IZAK --Yeshivish 04:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Heads a yeshiva and is an American Haredi leader. gidonb 05:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many NPOV violations and NOR problems (e.g. attributing his personal views to Aguda as a whole). When all these problematic parts are removed (and they should), there is little left that actually asserts his notability. JFW | T@lk  10:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * JFW: It is suprsiing that you are not aware of Rabbi Keller's stature in the American Agudath Israel movement, particulrly when he has written many key articles and "position papers" expressing Agudah's views to the world that tracks Haredi life. IZAK 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - IZAK: I was not attacking Rabbi Keller, please reread my comment. I accept your statement that Keller is not like the Christian fundamentalists I mentioned, and I'm sorry you are upset.  I refuse to get in the middle of a fight involving Jewish Orthodoxy, especially when I know very little about it (I had to look up Chabed). We are here to discuss whether the article meets WP article requirements. In my comment, I was trying to establish an understanding of why news sources involved in (or too close to) fundamentalist issues, religious schisms, contentious issues within a religious group, or any other polarizing issues, have to be looked at especially hard.  This is necessary to determine if they are performing credible, neutral, and balanced reporting, and have a reputation of doing so. I'm not looking at this as a debate on fundamentalism or the religious issues involved, just whether Keller is, or is not notable.  He has zero references in The New York Times and in both the major general circulation daily newspapers in Chicago—The Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times.  And neither does the Yeshiva.  To me, that indicates lack of notability. Furthermore, being the head of a yeshiva, or a church, or a college does not, per se, make one notable. And I agree with the last comment from corpx. — Becksguy 11:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Becksguy: Your comments are appreciated, however you are still missing the point. If one were to wait or reply upon The New York Times as an absolute source for biographical material about notable rabbis, let alone Orthodox or Haredi rabbis, then Wikipedia would have close to zero articles about current living or recent rabbis. Thus far, it has been up to editors familiar with the subject at hand to decide if the rabbis or personalities at hand are notable and in turn that is backed up by the published material that is related to those subjects. It all depends on one's orientation, to know what is important as a source and what is not. How on Earth could any articles be written about any notable Haredi rabbis if they avoid the secular media and very little is available in other sources? That is where the expertise, and consensus, of EXPERIENCED, RELIABLE, and TRUSTWORTHY editors is a key. Just as quite often, "new editors" are not allowed to edit general Wikipedia articles in all areas until such time as their reliability and editing "credentials" can be relied upon, similarly in cases where it is important to SEEK out and elicit the INPUT from experienced editors. This is something that User:PinchasC tried to skip and also you seem not to grasp. In this case, The Jewish Observer magazine, as the official magazine of Agudath Israel is key, and the role of the Yated Ne'eman (United States) as a newspaper guided by the Agudah leadership is crucial because that is where one can "hear it from the horse's mouth" so to speak. Unless a rabbi has written books that are widely known, which not all do, then one must rely upon the sources closest to him, and in this case (of Rabbi Keller) they are there and full of thorough articles that express his views and those of that segement of the Haredi population he represents and speaks for. To ignore or minimise it's importance would be a great shame, and an encyclopedic loss to Wikipedia. IZAK 08:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep a shaper of litvishe yeshivishe guys should be noteble to them--יודל 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article notes he is head of the Telshe yeshiva (Chicago), was spokesperson for Agudath Israel of America, and describes his role in Yated Ne'eman (United States). This is easily sufficient notability to satisfy WP:BIO. POV and citation problems can be fixed. An AfD discussion assesses whether the topic is a notable and verifiable topic, not whether the current article is a quality article. Religious sources are considered reliable sources for religious matters, including whether a religious figure is considered notable in the field of religion. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote. --Shirahadasha 17:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Ones opinion of Rabbi Keller's views is simply irrelevant to whether the article meets Wikipedia's article inclusion criteria, and I would urge commenters not to use this space to discuss such matters. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep of course! Chesdovi 20:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Stub and keep Most of the article is not adequately sourced, and the article as a whole violates WP:NOR as being a Wikipedian's evaluation of the articles he has written. Essentially all the content about his views needs to come out until reliable third party sources commenting upon those views are found.  Right now, the article has adequate independent sourcing to demonstrate that he is notable, but not to say anything about his views.  The last bullet of the WP:SELFPUB section of WP:V is also applicable.  GRBerry 21:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi GR: Your suggestion is unique and odd and I have never seen such a self-defeating "solution" that actually means an article should be "cannibalised" to "save" itself. Somewhat like asking someone to commit suicide becaue you don't like what they have to say. In these type/s of articles (and I am not sure how much experience you have had with them on Wikipedia) there are very few "reliable third party sources" in the way you conceive of them, see the important comments by User:Shirahadasha above in this regard. In any case, what is your definition of a "thrird party"? Basically, you are dealing with a living rabbi who writes and speaks out on current issue within the confines of a very narrow (organizational) orbit, i.e. the Jewish Orthodox and more specifically the American Haredi Agudath Israel world. This is not an area that is tracked very well or much by either the secular Jewish or general media, but it is still neverthless notable and of encyclopedic value. Often, there are few outside books and articles to go by. Thus whatever material that can be attributed to the main subject is, what is called in historical studies, a valuable primary source, provided it is treated as such and not as "gospel truth" -- which this article does not do when quoting him. In this article, Rabbi Keller's views are being quoted and analyzed critically and they are not being taken at face value alone. Incidentally, your notion of "third party" views may be what is termed in historical studies a secondary source and may actually be less reliable, believe it or not. It is silly to suggest that the "views" segments in the article (or any article) be removed as that would be like asking that all "quotes" by and from famous people in any articles be removed from Wikipedia, which would be ridiculous. There is no rule or guideline on Wikipedia that says that the words of a subject in an article cannot or should not be quoted provided they are placed in the context of the main article. To ask, as you do, that all quotes or "views" of and by subjects of biographies be cut out would be a ridiculous suggestion, and I suggest that you retract it. IZAK 09:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it seems at least a reasonable comment to me. If the article is to be kept, and I think that's now likely, there can be different views about how it should be treated. I hope someone will actually add paper references. If they can, there will be a much better basis. Charles Matthews 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything written by the subject, or an organization of which he is a leader is not independent. Whether that writing is sourced to the original publication or to a convenience link on somebody else's website isn't relevant to the question of independence.  For a ridiculous example, if he happened to be one of the (millions? of) members of the ACLU, that wouldn't be enough to make the ACLU non-independent, but if he was an officer or director of the ACLU, it would.  So written materials by unaffiliated rabbis in that Jewish sub-culture would be independent, but materials written by the subject and the organizations he is a leader of or spokesperson for (the Telshe Yeshiva in Chicago, the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah based on the article) or works for (possibly the Yated Ne'eman, depending on his particular relationship to them and their organizational structure) are not independent.
 * The critical analysis, because it is not sourced, violates the policy against original research. This a basic policy that can not be overridden by consensus among the editors of a single page or of a topical project.  Such original research must be removed, this is not a discretionary action.  See the WP:PSTS subsection of the policy, which says in relevant part "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."
 * The article must be stubbed (or sourced acceptably even faster) in order to comply with policy. Because I believe that stubbing is needed to comply with policy, I consider stubbing a requirement for keeping the article.  I don't consider my comment a minor suggestion, I consider it an absolute requirement to keep the article in existence.  Your (IZAK's) reaction indicates that you may have been working on other articles that fail to comply with policy in similar fasion, and I recommend that you return to those articles and make them compliant with policy.  GRBerry 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. OK, IZAK, you convinced me with your point about "mainstream" sources. He seems to be notable enough in the world of Jewish Orthodoxy. I'm changing my "vote". I still have problems with the citations and their possible objectivity, but that can be hashed out later, as can the rest of the article per above. Especially since I've argued before about not throwing out babies with the bath water, that is, keeping articles that are improvable. This AfD was a learning experience.  — Becksguy 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure Becksguy, you are welcome any time. As I look at what you write here, it may be said that it's true of all Wikipedia articles, isn't that what this entire project is all about? of writing down information and the going about the process of editing it, hashing it out etc etc as in How to edit a page, Manual of Style etc etc. Thanks for all your consideration/s. IZAK 13:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Java7837 17:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It does seem to meet the notability guideline, though it is a strech.-- Sef rin gle Talk 04:55, 31 August 2007 (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.