Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dovid Eliezrie


 * 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.  Cbrown1023   talk   00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Dovid Eliezrie

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another run of the mill Chabad rabbi, one of thousands sent out to spread the "gospel" of their movement, nothing unique (see Shluchim or Shlichim today) and not anywhere as notable as some of the senior rabbis in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis. This so-called biography fails Wikipedia's standards and thus violates WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:NOT. IZAK 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for above reasons. 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article definitely needs a lot of work and sources, but he is notable. He's one of the most prominent Chabad representatives and spokesmen, frequently published in the press, someone the press turn to for comment when something strange happens in Lubavitch.  If IZAK thinks he's "yet another run of the mill Chabad rabbi", with "nothing unique" about him, then he displays his ignorance of the subject.  Zsero 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We'd be happy to be enlightened, then. Unfortunately, of the quite scanty 94 Google hits on this fellow, all the press references involved blogs, websites, a couple smalltown weeklies, and a single mention of his name in the Forward.  Until there are actual sources which are about Reb Eliezrie, instead of passing website quotes from him on other issues, this violates WP:V and WP:BIO, and I'm advocating Delete.    Ravenswing  18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice. There seems to have been a rash of these lately. He may be notable, but this is not established by the article... which is all we can really go by. EyeSereneTALK 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on the amount of media mentions, This person has demonstrable wide name recognition. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  03:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See this google news search, this website and this google search for details. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. He's a well-known writer and spokesperson, as is immediately clear from a google search, on which there are NOT 94 ghits, as was spuriously claimed, but 540!! Ravenswing (perhaps unwittingly) refers to a search for "Dovid Eliezrie" -Wikipedia, which is bound to turn up less sites than a search for "Dovid Eliezrie", for which there are, as I said, 540 ghits. And the fact that the article doesn't reflect that yet is simply because it's a STUB! Get it? It's not yet had a chance to be developed. As for what one can "go by", after a cursory examination of sites on google, you'll see that his notability is confirmed enough that you can leave the stub, and then it can be developed. I for one have no interest in developing a stub that is going to be deleted in 5 days time because 5 days earlier it was a stub. Yehoishophot Oliver 04:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Far from "spurious," unless you believe that it is somehow spurious to remove Wikipedia and Wiki mirrors from a Google search, or "unwitting" to provide a link to the actual search I performed, as opposed to making something up. As it happens, quite aside from ignoring WP:AGF, you also failed to review those links, because if you trail to the end of your "540" search (and 540 Google hits is in of itself scanty; I get 1600, myself, and have a few more publications in print than Mr. Eliezrie seems to have), only 79 unique hits show up  with no more media references than before.  And that is the rub; it isn't that we're picking on a poor innocent stub, it is that we neither believe the subject is notable, nor that he passes WP:V, nor that the stub can never be expanded through reliable sources.  I would be happy to change my stance should you or anyone else provide such sources, and it is my overwhelming experience in AfD debates that an article which cannot be provided with such sources within five days wasn't notable enough to be provided within fifty.    Ravenswing  06:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment perhaps it would be useful to add some of these references to the actual article? If they exist, add the most important, so we can all judge if they are significant. It's just as easy as protesting here. Id he supporters won;t improve the article, what is anyone else to think? DGG (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Uh, I apologise, Ravenswing, I see now what you mean now about the mirror wiki sites. I'm still learning the technical ropes here. Sorry. Yehoishophot Oliver 10:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A more appropriate Google search is this one. The number of results goes up to 1,110 - but what's important is that most of the notable sources are under "David," not "Dovid." This page contains more than enough evidence to substantiate the notability of this article. --XDanielx 11:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm still not sold on the fellow's notability -- for one thing, the media links aren't about him -- but a number of op-ed pieces in the Jerusalem Post is enough to take me off the Delete list. Should the article be renamed "David" if that's the name by which he's more familiar?    Ravenswing  13:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure about the naming; perhaps another editor will be able to clarify. I agree that reporting in a newspaper doesn't really satisfy notability guidelines, but I think his fairly wide array of articles justify a weak keep. Unlike most other reporters, Eliezrie's articles are more like publicized essays. Commonly journalists will "ask the experts" and summarize the findings, whereas Eliezrie in general produces more original work -- and the media groups he writes for seem to accept him as an academic authority. I realize that those media groups aren't the most prestigious, but I think it suffices for a weak keep. --XDanielx 04:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable. Can't have an article for every rabbi... Number   5  7  14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per IZAK. The amount of articles that he authored doesn't impress me - they are written by him, not about him. Getting articles published in the Jerusalem Post just doesn't cut it for notability.--DLand TALK 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Many of his articles tie into his own knowledge and personal experiences. See for examples this article, which in a short piece uses the words "I" and "we" 24 times. Many of them have an argumentative focus, and the arguments seem to come from his own knowledge or experience rather than a "consult the experts" section. So many (most? all?) of them are not only written by him, but also about him, or at least his ideas. I think the distinction between a common journalist and and essayist who publishes columns in media publications is an important one. --XDanielx 08:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete writing a few op-ed pieces is not independent and notable coverage. I agree with IZAK. Jon513 13:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It pains me to 'delete' a Rabbi, but WP is not a directory. With God's help, this rabbi will do great things and warrant an article on his merits. --Shuki 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have until fairly recently shared the sentiments expressed by Shuki here, however, we cannot lose perspective, and only highly notable rabbis should be worthy of biographies, otherwise Wikipedia will be flooded with pointless articles about any and all "village and town" rabbis who ever walked the face of the Earth. IZAK 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since Wikipedia is driven by policies and common sense rather than precedent, the slippery slope argument doesn't bear much weight. --XDanielx 19:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep he is notable as explained by Zsero, PinchasC, Yehoishophot Oliver and XDanielx. Chocolatepizza 03:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 06:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Slippery slopes and Google tests aside, there's simply not enough sourceable material to write a proper article here. Sidatio 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Existing article doesn't rise to the standards demonstrated by his peers in Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis, and googling for his name under various spellings doesn't (at least yet) identify enough reliable sources to be able to imagine that the article can improve enough to establish WP:N per Notability (people). Kayaker 22:02, 1 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.