Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dov Ber Pinson


 * 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, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dov Ber Pinson

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article fails to assert any notability and should be speedily deleted. The article appears to be a vanity article, the user appears to have tried adding links all of wikipedia in the past few days. David Spart 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   --Shirahadasha 07:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete David Spart 09:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this WP:NN stub which may also run against WP:COI. IZAK 12:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:COI? Whaa? David Spart 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the way of a vanity article. Chalk me up for a Speedy Delete as well, no assertion of notability.  Ravenswing 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, very little content, no sources to support claim of notability. NawlinWiki 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:A Alf Photoman  21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per recently added sources. And comment is someone would put in the sources from the beginning we would not have to waste our time on an AfD Alf Photoman  16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Meets WP:N, WP:V, I've begun improving the article. He's published several books, as well as many articles for Chabad, and is well known on the lecture circuit on topics concerning Jewish mysticism.  He's one of the few who has published in the areas of Jewish meditation and reincarnation.  Here is an article in Spirituality & Health on him for starters. -- M P er el ( talk 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He is not "well known". He certainly is not one of "the few" who have published on Jewish "meditation and mysticism" or in the areas of "meditation and reincarnation". He is a self published vanity author, who has never had a book reviewed by a major publication. He apparently created this article and spammed references to himself all around wikipedia to drum up publicity for himself.  He is the very definition of WP:NN and has no non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, let alone multiple references. He has self published a few books and contributed a few (four) puff pieces (which you describe as "many articles") for his books to a minor website. David Spart 10:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of his books are published by Jason Aronson, which is a reputable publisher known in the academic world. It certainly is not a vanity publisher.  Here is a review of one of his books by The Forward.  And another review by  the Jewish journal Zeek.  And here he's discussed alongside Aryeh Kaplan and others in Ziggurat, the journal of religion at Brown University.  He's on the recommended booklist of "reliable and authoritative" works on Jewish mysticism by Ascent of Safed.  I'm curious to know what well known living authorities on Jewish meditation and/or reincarnation you would name?  -- M P er el ( talk 11:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually you are incorrect. Aronson publish real books but are also a vanity publisher.  Meaning they will publish almost anything as long as you pay them.  Give them a call and ask them - I happen to be well aware of the situation there.  Not that that would make any difference - there are still no non-trivial published works with Pinson as a subject way which are notable in any and he has very low ghits. There are many more notable than him Goldie Milgram, Ariel Bar Zadok, Akiva Belk, Akiva Tatz, Joanne Gerber and the list goes on.  David Spart 11:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, the books and external links show that he is notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the books are vanity, and the "reviews" are all in non-notable publications and are mostly not about his books especially. There are no non-trivial external sources about this individual, merely two or three fleeting references to his work (one by a friend) and a review in a non-notable web journal.  "Ascent to Safed" said that he is "reliable and authoritative", that just about says it all.  You choose to delete Sokolovsky a few weeks ago because he is against your POV despite being notable, but want an article on a genuine nobody because he conforms to your own POV despite having no notability whatsoever.  David Spart 12:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most would not consider the religious journal from Brown University non-notable or trivial, nor Forward. At any rate, I think I've provided an ample broad sampling from religious and academic reliable sources that find him notable.  -- M P er el ( talk 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - the seconadry sources cited in fact do not make him notable. The citations at ZEEK/ Forward are using him as a safe whipping post to say what they dont like about current Haredi books seeking to present Judiasm in a hip way. They show just the oppsoite of notability. They show that he is a small enough person that a reviewer can trash him and not worry about reprisal. The article from Brown is in a STUDENT journal of Brown U. is just that, a student journal. We dont included every rock band, visiting rabbi, or hillel director who gets cited in a student article. The books do indeed seem vanity and it looks like several of his works have not even appeared. He uses of conflict of interest words and peacock words in his own self promotion, these words of promotion are then compied into the articles by and about him is equally a sign of NN. He may be a nice guy, a smart guy, and he may give many lectures, but he is less than Steve Burg - head of NCSY - whom we decided to delete. He is also less than several of the names mentioned above. He also may be important in 5 years from now, but now he is not. --Jayrav 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that Notability (people) states that a topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. It doesn't say that it's not notable if those sources "trash" the subject (meanwhile I don't agree that Forward or Zeek "trashes" Pinson).  I also didn't like seeing the Steve Burg article deleted, as I think being the head of NCSY is notable, but I tried and was unable to find any secondary sources about him, unlike in this case. -- M P er el ( talk 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is daft. The references have to be non-trivial.  A trashing en passent is not good enough, and frankly any mere book review is not really ok since it is not discussing him only his book.  Gratuitous (and useless) self publicist. David Spart 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article in the Forward was by the editor of Zeek, hence the articles are quite related. Unfortunatly, this is a case where a speedly delete might have been kinder and more efficient, so that two weeks later someone could start a normal modest article about the guy. The creators of the original article called him "the greatest modern Jewish philosopher" and compared him to Luria. Not a good way to start a modest article of a minor person. Maybe he does deserve an article but this case seems to be working backwards from COI and megalomaniac Peacock words to establishing even minor notability. Even now, I find it offputing that the article calls Pinson, someone who only gives a few adult ed classes, a "rosh yeshiva." --Jayrav 21:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also the article about Pinson in Spirituality & Health which is a magazine that likely appeals to a narrower niche but still qualifies as a secondary source that is reliable and independent of the subject. Whatever peacock words the original author of this article used really doesn't matter as that's easy enough to remedy.  Anyway, do whatever, I'm getting frustrated and exhausted wasting time and effort when so much of editing at WP seems to center around people's private beefs and personal quarrels with other editors rather than reasonableness (this is not directed at you particularly, just a general sense I'm getting on these afds, which means time for a break for me). -- M P er el ( talk 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the guy is notable as MPerel has clearly demonstrated. --Shlomke 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability Avi 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per MPerel. Just becuase he isn't "one of the few" that have published Judaic theory books and articles doesn't mean he's not "notable."  --Oakshade 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per MPerel. Meets notability guidelines. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements made to the article (including the addition of new sources). See diff.  -- Black Falcon 19:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep. The sources recently listed apparently show Ber Pinson to be notable; would like article to be expanded further because it is a stub. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 09:02, 15 March 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.