Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gershon Wiesenfeld


 * 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 consensus and policy. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 03:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Gershon Wiesenfeld

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO. Recently deleted via WP:PROD, subsequently re-created. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —Jayjg (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep this article because as a founding dean of an institution of higher learning, rabbi weisenfeld passes wikipedia's criteria for notability, especially based on precedent set by other articles dealing with Rosh Yeshiva on wikipedia. Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic is currently regarded as one of the most prestigious (by many count it is second to Paterson, headed by Rabbi Weisenfeld's own son-in-law). The esteem with which Rabbi Weisenfeld is held is evident from some of the links which are included in the article. Do a quick google search on him. Of course, I must disclose that I am not impartial to this issue because I researched and wrote the article. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rachak: Thanks for your input. You, or anyone, are not "required" to disclose your "qualifications" to have a say in this AfD, and because you are the creator of the article it can lend credibility to the subject because of your research. Special request, since you mention those Google hits, why not add the suitable ones in to the article with any suitable information they carry. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTABLE Haredi rabbi and founding rosh yeshiva of the very notable Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic that was established in 1973 that is vibrant and that still continues. I have upgraded the article with its references and it is at least a very good Rabbi-stub like many others in Category:Rabbi stubs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The references added to the article consist of a letter to the editor of a newspaper, a publication where the sum total of content about the subject is "The Passaic Yeshiva, known worldwide for molding true bnei Torah, was established in 1973 by Rabbi Chaim Davis and Rabbi Gershon Weisenfeld zt'l, who joined as rosh kollel. When Rav Weisenfeld took ill right before the Yeshiva was to open, HaRav Meir Stern joined the hanhalla.", a forum post naming him as the husband of his wife and another similar name check in an article about his wife. This is hardly significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I have been unable to find anything better. The degree of vibrancy of the yeshiva that he co-founded is not part of our inclusion guidelines. As an aside, both our article and the sources added seem to be unsure about the spelling of the subject's name. Maybe if we could establish the correct spelling it would be easier to find sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Phil thanks for your input. Any good yeshiva is established by solid and notable men, especially modern yeshivas in America in the post-Holocaust era, that are all pioneering ventures. Therefore a more constructive suggestion would be to Merge and Redirect to the main Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic article, that itself is not more than a stub, thereby not losing some valuable information pertaining to it from this brief biography of one of its key founders. Thanks for your consideration. IZAK (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This art has the same problem as the one on Tzvi Berkowitz and undoubtedly numerous others: it is nothing more than a Boosterism article having no real WP:RS, only pointers to web sites and supporting testimonials. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Hi Agri, the case you mention was a "Keep" for good reasons. It's not "boosterism" it's a reflection of true humility by people who are not media or publicity hounds. A rosh yeshiva is a rarity and there are very few of them therefore they gain notability status, but the question remains how to quantify that to satisfy the still-evolving methods of WP that cannot measure such things yet adequately. Such scholars are averse to publicity and are not on show but their notability in Torah Judaism is beyond a doubt. The problem is that WP does not have the ability to measure the true notability of religious leaders in Judaism. There needs to be more debate and input from editors with know how, such as at WP:TALKJUDAISM to get a balanced picture, even then it's not easy. IZAK (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right in that that article was a "keep", but I disagree that it was for good reason. I might quote a reply to you made by David Eppstein in that AfD: "All of a sudden this article had a batch of completely inane votes based on WP:OTHERSTUFF (yours) and WP:MAJORITY (most of the others). They add nothing to the discussion and should be avoided; we need verifiable reasons why he's important enough to warrant an article, not just more Wikipedia editors saying so without explaining why." In other words, this is the same sort of special pleading you've given on many occasions in the past. It basically claims that we should ignore WP conventions that require WP:RS and evidence of notability and should simply instead take your word that such a person is notable because we ourselves are unqualified to render an informed opinion. Sorry, but that's nonsense. This article has no real WP:RS and no real evidence of notability. It should be deleted unless such can be furnished. I will happily and humbly change my position on this article if sources and evidence are added! As for the Berkowitz article, it's still in the same sorry shape and should be deleted as well, but that is of course another matter. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Hi Agri, thanks for responding, but your are wrong, and I will prove to you why. Before I do, let me make perfectly clear that I have initiated and support deletions, but one has to know enough about the subject and not rely on technicalities of WP policies to build an encyclopedia, and before one is going to get into a lengthy debate that involves deleting information about any subject and be taken seriously. So: 1 Wikipedia relies on editors who are presumed and relied upon to have expertise in their fields, as ascertained by other editors they have edited with in that field usually over a number of years. They do have insight that a person ignorant of that field lacks. 2 It is not "special pleading" for editors who know a field of knowledge to say, hang on, let's not rush here, this is a worthy encyclopedic subject, and that it needs time, don't rush to delete. This applies to any field. I would not go into subjects to do with Category:Christianity or Category:Hinduism that I am not expert in and get involved in AfDs there for the heck of it and spout WP "policies" -- I would become very unpopular if I did -- and they have thousands of similar weak bios and articles that would be deleted but still stay, simply because they may still be proven to have value. 3 That's why WP itself has mechanisms to stop early or premature deletions of articles under construction by tagging them with various templates such as Stub, Refimprove, Expert-verify (that actually requests input from EXPERTS in that subject and as an expert -- based on my WP editorial history alone -- I am telling you this article needs to be kept!!!) see all the many hundreds of choices of templates to request more and improved work on articles constructively at Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates; Category:Citation templates; Category:Citation templates -- that do not lead to "automatic" deletions. 4 If you really cared about this topic and wanted to help improve the article you have the choice to start a DISCUSSION at at least three places, an article's talk page, at the article creator's talk page, and at the relevant Wiki-Project's talk page, see WP:TALKJUDAISM, to see what others truly interested in this subject have to say and how they think about this subject. 5 Always have in mind the wise suggestions of both Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Give an article a chance. Especially if you already know it is a sensitive topic with some editors, you don't brush them aside as you are now doing as if you know better, but instead try to approach this in the spirit of Consensus on the creative level of creating the article and not on the side of condescendingly reading the "riot act" to others who know and can apply WP rules and policies as well as you can. 6 Then there is another viable approach that I strongly favor, and that is if an article cannot stand on its own then there should be ways found to save the legitimate information it holds. That is easily done by a "Merge and Redirect" to a place where this topic fits in, in this case it would be contributing to an important American Torah Judaism and Haredi Judaism institution in New Jersey the Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic that this article's subject was notable for founding. IZAK (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Your argument 1 is patently false. There is neither an implied requirement nor a presumption that someone be an expert on an article to edit. In fact this is stated right on the WP Intro Page, in WP:BOLD, etc. In essence, nobody WP:OWNS any particular article. Arguments 2, 3, and 5 build further upon the WP:OWNERSHIP concept you are trying to push, attempt to discredit people who would apply WP policies, and basically plead the "just give it more time" position. Argument 4 tries to shift the burden away from those who wrote the article from the responsibility of documenting it and to instead cast any skeptics as mean-spirited editors who don't care. I'll not have it and here's why. Invariably, these articles have no WP:RS because there is no WP:RS out there to be had. To "just give it more time" is to stall. Take the Berkowitz article again as an example. It still has no reliable sources that demonstrate notability, despite the fact that I raised this issue last May and even took it to AfD! This is predictably when the pleading starts regarding how regular policies shouldn't apply in this case. The AfD archive is full of instances like this. I'm afraid what this boils down to is no WP:RS, no article. I think again that our dear colleague David Eppstein summed this point up well in the Berkowitz AfD and that his observation is applicable here, as well: "I trust IZAK that this is an important person within his community. But the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not importance, but notability: can his significance be verifiably documented through reliably published third-party sources? The sourcing in this article is very poor...I am left only with the word of our subject-expert editors that he is important, and while I believe them I don't think that should be sufficient grounds for inclusion." While I agree in general with your point number 6, it seems that in this particular case, the notability of even the redirect article is being questioned. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Agri, just because someone opposes your POV does not mean that they "own" an article that's the subject of any AfD. If that would be the case, then WP would not advise nominators to contact creators of articles and at WP-Project notifications to give them the chance of responding to any proposed AfD, so to accuse editors who see an article beyond the skeletal "policy" dragons you insist on invoking, while attempting to tar intelligent and serious opposition to your deletionist behavior on whatever grounds, is rather poor form on your part. In addition, you only have yourself to blame for deepening opposition to your POV when you deliberately inflamed this discussion by referring to other AfDs that you lost, that makes you seem like a sore loser by globalizing this AfD rather than acting reasonably, staying focused, and as is any user's right simply vote yea or nay and be done with it without "citing" this and that old gripe or belly-aching that you are not getting your way because you just know how to apply policies better than the users you are disagreeing with your POV. Policies are important, but WP is first and foremost about an imperfect and difficult ART of CREATING, WRITING, EDITING and IMPROVING articles, and here you have an example where editors are willing to put in the effort to do that and are in the process, yet you insist on criticizing them. By all means every good and busy user comes across articles worthy of deletion, and I have done that many times by commencing many an AfD, but to take on a deletionistic way of life, living only in the realm of WP policies and defend that with inflammatory arguments sounds like WP:LAWYERING gone awry and does not improve WP. IZAK (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources that describe the subject nontrivially and that provide some hint of the subject's significance appear. The sources already present in the article are unconvincing (two of them don't even mention the subject). As for the "He founded a notable yeshiva" argument: (1) notability is not inherited; (2) his involvement with the yeshiva seems to have been quite brief; and (3) the article on the yeshiva in question makes no case for its notability, and looks like a db-org candidate. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the unreliable sources referenced in the article do all mention the subject in passing—it's just that neither our article nor the sources can decide whether his name is Wiesenfeld or Weisenfeld. If we can't even establish his name then we have little hope of establishing notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You mentioned that argument twice now. Transliteration is always tricky business and depending on the particular writer's preferences and style, different words when transliterated can come out different. This is especially true with many Jewish surnames who origins are not necessarily English but were Anglicized that a clear way of spelling them is not universally agreed upon. I hope this does not hamper our efforts in attempting to provide information. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Question for David Eppstein: Not sure what your "expertise" or "knowledge" is about yeshivas in general, but could you please tell us here what you would consider criteria that make any established yeshiva notable? On your own user page you state that: "Much of my Wikipedia editing is on mathematics articles, but I've also edited articles on computer science, academic biography, the arts, and California geography" -- so what does that have to do with yeshivas and rosh yeshivas (the people who found, teach in, and lead yeshivas)? Remember, yeshivas are quiet places with quiet students and quiet rabbis who teach there, none of them seek fame and glory and few get noticed by the media, because they are places where Torah, Talmud, Rabbinic literature are studied in depth and they are the intellectual and scholarly centers of Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Judaism and Hasidic Judaism. So what kind of "fame" and "notability" are needed if one can find a few good references online to them and one can cite facts and statistics about the numbers of students in them and something about faculty members. For some notable phenomena, verified existence is enough, and certainly if there are more raw facts and data that are related to it. Please clarify, and not just spout WP this and that, because anyone can do that. Please show that you have sensitivity and knowledge about the subject, otherwise it just looks like you are wielding, or making threats to wield, a proverbial hatchet. Do you want WP to have more information about the yeshiva world and its people -- and nurture it as any growing subject on WP requires -- or do you want to cut it all out? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no experience with yeshivas; I am not even Jewish. My criteria are exactly the same as for a church or small business or private school: it must pass WP:ORG by being covered nontrivially in multiple reliable non-local independent sources (not necessarily online, but publicly available). It's admirable for them to wish to lead a quiet secluded life, but if that causes them to not be well-attested in reliable sources then that's incompatible with having an article here — admirability is very far from the same thing as notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intrude here too, but I must point out that this is exclusively an issue of policy, i.e. of reliable sources that demonstrate notability. David's degree of "expertise" or "knowledge" about yeshivas is irrelevant and I don't think we should allow the debate to be cast in these terms, i.e. where a professed expert believes their opinion should be allowed to overrule a WP policy. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC).
 * I find it interesting also that IZAK demanded my qualifications after going out of his way to reassure the article creator that no qualifications were needed. It creates the appearance of a double standard. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is behavior that is characteristic of Boosterism articles. Agricola44 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC).
 * To David Eppstein: The above editor tends to be nervous and sells himself short even though he has lots of experience. I was encouraging him to WP:BEBOLD and I was not contradicting myself because I agree with him that it's an important subject. IZAK (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To Agricola44: Would you like to comment in the same way on a series of articles I would propose for deletion from other religions? For example, how much better are these bare stubs: Mohamed El Salamouny; Ilgar Ibrahimoglu; Salim al-Shaikhi? (Just three random examples from Islam, there are thousands more like this.) Let me know when we can start -- by the way, it goes against all my WP instincts because I never get involved in subjects that I generally do not edit in, but you seem to have no problem with that, so let's try it and see what Islam editors who are experts in that field have to say, and see if you accuse them of "boosterism" whatever that is, because you are now violating WP:AGF, and how they would react to it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What reason do you have for thinking that any editor commenting here would treat a Muslim subject any differently? Based on the sources currently in the articles then all of the articles that you identify would be candidates for deletion, but, as they haven't been nominated, I haven't checked whether I can find better sources for them. Sorry, Izak, but it's you who are failing to assume good faith, as the proof your boosterism (and please don't pretend that you don't know what the word means) is found in your contention that a couple of mentions in postings on Internet forums are evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I regularly (actually daily) check AfD and comment – my edit history is crystal-clear on this point. The Islam-related articles you're referring to IZAK have not come up to AfD, so I've never looked at them. However, I assure you I would apply the same policy-based assessments to them. I agree with Phil that it is you that is edging toward bad-faith here with such backhanded accusations. Be that as it may, let me try to convince you that I have, in fact, applied these same principles to other articles I would classify as boosters of other socio-ethnoreligious groups by inviting you to look through my contributions. Of interest to you might be, for example, this one, which was particularly acrimonious (in my opinion). Nevertheless, in the end, it was deleted for solid policy reasons as partially argued by me. Again, I assure you that I'm not treating your group any differently, despite what you very clearly perceive. I trust this will now get the commenters here past any questions about my suspected motivations. Very respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep* I see no reason why this article can't be improved to be compliant with Wikipedia policy. A little research can do a lot of good! I encourage the community to step up and do some legwork before an article gets the N4D tag. --yonkeltron (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject was the founder of a major yeshiva in the U.S. as well as the Rosh Mesivta (head) of a well-known rabbinical college. This satisfies WP:Notability (academics) Criteria #4. I added some references and will try to find Rabbi Wiesenfeld mentioned in a book in my local Jewish library shortly. To David Eppstein: While verifiability is a bedrock of Wikipedia, you are simply not going to find any of the major yeshivas in the U.S., Israel, or anywhere else covered at length in local media, unless a scandal is associated with them. In the religious Jewish world, however, these yeshivas represent the pinnacle of the ideal of Torah study and their rosh yeshivas (deans) are widely respected and quoted in classes, tapes, and books. I think that the fact that Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic is adequately sourced as being one of the foremost yeshiva gedolahs in the country is proof enough that its founding rosh yeshiva is important. Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The new English-language sources certainly help to support the notability of the yeshiva, but have no significant coverage of Wiesenfeld. I don't read Hebrew so I can't evaluate the other source - could someone give us an indication of how much coverage there is in the Hebrew source of Wiesenfeld himself? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is not true that coverage is lacking for yeshivas and their staff. What is true is that notable ones are covered and non-notable ones are not. Check some other Wikipedia articles on them if you don't believe me. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect to his school. Being Dean of anything is insufficient for notability. No independent secondary sources analyze to subject. Also, was only Dean for two years and was sick during that time, so his impact falls under WP:1E. Abductive  (reasoning) 02:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Abductive: "Delete" and/or "Redirect" together, cannot be done at the same time, what you would mean to say is "Merge and Redirect" which can be done, and that may yet be the best solution. IZAK (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. the subject may not be important to the majority of the public, but is certainly of note in a large and stable subgroup of the population, and is likely to remain a person of historical note in the future. Whether or not the article is currently of sterling quality is a completely separate argument. Gzuckier (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. From the context, he started a school. Notability otherwise not established (other than being related or acquianted to some important people). JFW &#124; T@lk  02:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article makes a more than credible claim of notability and provides sources to back that up. The subject of leaders of such yeshivas is one that is generally poorly covered and Rabbi Wiesenfeld's era is one that has even more spotty coverage available in sources that would be more readily available through archival media accessible online. Given the scope of his accomplishments and the backing available to support that, retention is adequately justified. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove that they are poorly covered. And if something is "poorly covered", is it not the case that it is not WP:Verifiable and/or WP:Notable? What is to stop people from creating pages on any subject they feel like, and claiming that the whole field is "poorly covered"? Take for example, Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies. It has 514 Google News Hits. Or how about Yeshiva Torah Vodaath? It has 159 Google News hits, many from the New York Times How is this consistent with "poorly covered"? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Abductive: To allege: "What is to stop people from creating pages on any subject they feel like, and claiming that the whole field is "poorly covered"?" is utter nonsense, and as a Wikipedian you should know the answer by now, and that is that WP has long-standing expert editors in any field, and they will pick up very quickly on things like that and reject them. Thus, as an example, expert editors in mathematics will very quickly pick up on any math WP:NONSENSE and they will know a math WP:HOAX when they see one. But, it is quite another matter when a significant number of WP editors, with a proven track record in their field of knowledge support an article because WP is all about its editors' contributions building it up. Don't forget, WP also relies on the power of veteran editors and experts, based on their editorial contributions, while new editors need to prove themselves. That is why many pages are protected or semi-protected from new editors until they can prove themselves. Surprising you don't factor this in. Then your examples are also bad because (a) the Conservative movement has very few schools, like Ziegler, and when it has them it launches a lot of PR about them, unlike similar Orthodox and Haredi schools that do not invest in PR and stay below the radar. And (b) Torah Vodaath is about 90 years old, one of the oldest Orthodox yeshivas, so obviously there is more about them online, then an institution that was founded about 25 years ago and has relatively less info about it online and in print, but it has nevertheless gained notability and importance worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia like WP. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me be more explicit: perhaps some here are concerned that if one school or dean is deleted, open season will be declared on all the other articles. But there are many schools and deans who are undoubtedly notable, and I will defend those articles just as strongly as I argue to delete or redirect this one. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't agree with the idea of strictly enforcing notability or sources, when there is a significant interest in the subject of an article. Ezra Wax (talk) 05:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, WP:IAR. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is special pleading and it has no place here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * David, unfortunately, you are lumping any "Keep" vote here as "special pleading" when there are a variety of different reasons being given both pro and con. No one is "pleading" for anything, since no one is a "beggar" here. What we are trying to do is help WP grow. This is for WP's benefit, not for any "pleaders" so please stop using that pejorative because you've said it more than once and it's been noted. If you didn't like what Ezra had to say, ask for better reasons based on WP policies, as that request is often made in AfDs, but please sound less judgmental. In this AfD you have chosen to be a participating user with a POV in an AfD that makes you an "involved admin" at most and you are not and cannot be the determining, closing admin or final "judge" of what is transpiring or being said by all parties in this AfD. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your response makes no sense. How can I be lumping together different keep arguments when I have only attached this label to a single argument? Perhaps others deserve it but I haven't said so in this AfD. In any case, you should go read the bluelink on special pleading because your response makes it clear that you don't understand what it is — it is a specific logical fallacy, not just some intuitive combination of the English words "soecial" and "pleading".: it is arguing as Ezra does that for some inadequately explained reason we should throw away our standards for this one case. And it is exactly what Ezra's argument consists of. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't accurately state my reason. I do not agree with the standard of notability commonly used. Wikipedia is not paper. The more articles the better. There have been too many articles that were interesting that have been deleted for the stupid reason that the subject is not notable enough. Who cares? There is plenty of room to have articles on everything. If I want to know about something that is not notable, I should be able to find it out. Ezra Wax (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems to me that many participants in this discussion don't know what a rosh yeshiva is. If I said to you that so-and-so is the dean of Harvard or Yale, you would agree that he is an important academic. The same is true for roshei yeshiva (deans) of Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic, Yeshiva Torah Vodaath, and Lakewood Yeshiva, among many others. A rosh yeshiva is at the pinnacle of the Torah world, teaching others and developing new Torah ideas on a regular basis. In contrast, the rabbi of a synagogue has left the intellectually fertile environment of the yeshiva and must rely on roshei yeshiva and poskim (halachic authorities, who are often roshei yeshiva) to answer the needs of his congregation. As IZAK has pointed out, the editors who know something about these subjects should be relied upon for their knowledge. And if Wikipedia rules do not account for Orthodox Jewish academics who are not widely covered in the press, then the rules should be amended to reflect that. It is true that some non-notable yeshivas and kollels have slipped through the AfD process and retained their own pages, but any Orthodox Jew can tell you off the top of his head which yeshivas and kollels are notable.
 * Regarding Rabbi Wiesenfeld's rather short tenure, I would like to note that before this, he was a rosh mesivta (head) of a rabbinic academy. The Hebrew reference cites this affiliation, which is also considered important in the yeshiva world. I am still looking for references in offline sources.
 * By the way, Jewish newspapers traditionally print biographies of major Jewish leaders on a significant yahrtzeit (anniversary of death). If you could all just hold on until this coming September, that will be the 30th yahrtzeit of Rabbi Wiesenfeld, and an article is sure to appear. Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with the yeshiva's page. If all we have to say about him is that he was R"Y and was related to some people, I think this can be done on the yeshiva page.  When more info comes to light (e.g., seforim he has written, etc.), we can consider breaking out a new entry.  Just my 2 cents.  —Dfass (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep --Yoavd (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The choice for the closing admin will essentially boil-down to whether policy should be enforced or not. On the one hand, there are the proponents who favor this article despite lack of references. From the the naked boosterism of Ezra Wax ("I don't agree with the idea of strictly enforcing notability or sources") to the WP:CRYSTAL of Yoninah ("If you could all just hold on until this coming September"), to the more subtle approach by IZAK, the proponents continue to plead instead of just simply adding proper sources. I take that as pretty solid evidence that there are none to really be found. On the other hand, the skeptics of this article (myself included) are arguing policy, that being that any article that doesn't adhere to sourcing requirements has got to go. The larger problem here relates to Wikipedia's reputation to the outside world as a legitimate encyclopedia. By many accounts, we're not doing that well. For example, to quote from the abstract of Luyt and Tan's paper (JASIST 61(4) 715-722, 2010) "This study evaluates how well the authors of Wikipedia history articles adhere to the site's policy of assuring verifiability through citations...The findings paint a dismal picture. Not only are many claims not verified through citations, those that are suffer from the choice of references used". There are untold numerous articles on WP that are nothing more than pages of vanity, promotion, fandom, or boosterism. If our mission truly is to offer an encyclopedia, then we absolutely must follow a strict WP:RS policy of documentation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Agri, you persist in wrongfully globalizing this AfD, almost to the point of contravening WP:NOTBATTLEFIELD with your wild accusations, and making this article into the literal sacrificial lamb of larger issues that have NOTHING to do with the value and veracity of this article to WP and by extension to a global public. I resent your lumping everyone who is voting "Keep" into one bunch, I can't recall such poor treatment of an entire group in a long time. I can safely speak for myself, so please do not speak for me. In my professional opinion as a WP editor, I affirm this article's value. I have just now participated in another AfD voting to delete because it was a phony article, see Articles for deletion/Jacob R Kon, you weren't there, pity. You are also not doing a service by discrediting the input of quite a few expert editors in this subject, based on both WP policies and logic and insight into this subject, who are not, as you allege, "contravening" or "causing" the complaints of the outside references you quote. WP does NOT answer to outside critics, but it DOES have it's own creative rhythms and methods of creating, nurturing, editing and improving articles that often takes more time in some case, as per Inclusionism, as with almost all stubs and subjects from tough to penetrate fields. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given by Phil Bridger (in his !vote and answers to keep arguments). I'd also be ok with merging or redirecting to Yeshiva Gedolah of Passaic.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not estabilshed despite the special pleading. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2011 (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.