Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilah Kletenik


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Gilah Kletenik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not meet, in my view, the notability guidelines for people. It is true that the subject has won some minor awards, but not notable ones. The articles and citations do not appear to be significant nor are they focused on Gilah Kletenic. If anything, the focus of the articles are on the role of women in spiritual leadership in Orthodox Judaism, a subject already covered in the wikipedia article on Orthodox_Jewish_feminism. Moogla (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete At best she gets passing mention in secondary sources. No indication that se gets the type of coverage needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Kletenik is a notable figure in reshaping the landscape of the Jewish community and the Orthodox community in particular. Her notability has less to do with the awards she has received and more to do with the groundbreaking work she has done. Kletenik is among the first women to function as clergy in the Orthodox community, she serves a congregation with over a thousand members, is associated with a prominent Jewish school. Her reach and influence in the community far exceed those of many others who appear on Wikipedia. I wonder about the proposal for deletion: is it curious that the proposal emerged from someone who has not been active on Wikipedia for 4 years now? Does this raise any concerns about the integrity of the suggestion? To seek to improve the page is one thing, to seek to remove it is quite another. Anyone who investigates the matter will find that Kletenik's notability within the landscape of Jewish life in America today is incontrovertible. (Note: I am the creator of this page, and a new editor.) Proustache (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Proustache (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep The many references on Kletenik's page indicate that she meets GNG. A variety of independent news sources - The New York Times, The Jewish Sound, The Jewish Week, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post -- have written about her and her work. Additionally, Kletenik has received independent recognition from a variety of organizations in the Jewish community, -- The Wexner Foundation, The Covenant Foundation -- this suggests that her achievements are sufficiently notable so as to earn that recognition. Also, she has worked and continues to work at a number of Jewish institutions that are change makers in the community -- Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, Ramaz School, JOFA, Yeshivat Chovivei Torah, Mechon Hadar. These groups are regularly in the news especially due to the kinds of issues about women and modernity, that Kletenik herself epitomizes. Also, these independent recognitions have happened over the course of several years and for various different reasons, thus "this was not a mere short-term interest." Finally, as the references on the page indicate, the evidence in favor of Kletenik's notability is "verifiable, objective evidence," is clearly not the "result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity." The claim against Kletenik's notability does not stand -- she clearly meets the GNG. Polymath49 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Adequately sourced, even at time of nomination, to meet the GNG. I added a couple more just now; there are others, but notability is clear.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on a cursory glance at a few of the sources. There's mention in a NY Times feature, a bio in a prominent weekly, etc. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of WP:V and WP:RS provided in the article. IZAK (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2014 (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.