Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Jachter


 * 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. There is a fundamental divide here on the question of whether the sources have enough depth to meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Howard Jachter

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BIO, don't see him passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC either. Rusf10 (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep author of five books and very prominent rabbi. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep between his books, writings online and other work there is enough to pass WP:GNG at a bare minimum. -  Galatz Talk  16:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment- Would any of his books pass WP:NBOOK? It doesn't appear that they would. Simply writing books does not allow someone to pass WP:AUTHOR.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not his individual books meet WP:NBOOK has not bearing on passing WP:AUTHOR so your question is moot. His books get enough press to easily pass WP:GNG and he definitely meets #1 of AUTHOR. You are also focusing on just that one aspect, since his career is varied you need to look at everything in totality. -  Galatz Talk  17:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources to show he meets #1 of AUTHOR? Or alternately, any sources to show he passes WP:BIO for other reasons?--Rusf10 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He meets WP:AUTHOR requirements.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, can you back up that statement with any proof? (because it doesn't exist in the article currently)--Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The books are basically self published based on a High School newsletter. Kol Torah publications is a self-published name bases on the HS newsletter of the same name. Much of the publicity is local human interest stories in his own community.--Jayrav (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep He appears to be pretty prominent in the Orthodox Jewish community as an expert on gittin and eruvin. Searching under his Hebrew name brings up a whole list of good sources. Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost all of those are local sources. He has not received widespread coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines award notability to university professors and researchers, but not to Orthodox rabbis because of a lack of "widespread coverage". In fact, being a dayan (rabbinical court judge) is an extremely notable position in the Jewish world, as is being the rabbi of a synagogue. Unlike the non-Jewish world, though, rabbis are generally not "written up" in the media, but are known by word of mouth. Something should be said about rabbis and dayanim under Notability (academics), but this has not been taken care of for all the years I've worked here. Yoninah (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't make the claim that being rabbi of a synagogue makes a person automatically notable, any more than you can make the claim that being a priest/reverend/pastor of a church makes someone automatically notable. Perhaps there should be some standard of inclusion for religious (not just Jewish) academics, but merely being the leader of a local congregation is not it.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That wasn't the claim he made. Again, not only is he a rabbi, he's also a dayan, and he's also an author, and he's also an educator. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep His work as an author and his subject-matter expertise in Jewish Law meet the notability standard, based on sources already in the article and additional references available using a simple Internet search. As has been the sad pattern in the torrent of AfDs from this nominator, there seems to be no compliance with the basic requirements of WP:BEFORE, an essential guideline intended to avoid the worst abuses of deletionism. Alansohn (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been the sad pattern his participation in AfDs, the above editor seems to have no compliance with the basic requirements of WP:GNG, an essential guideline to avoid the worst abuses of inclusionism.Now to deal with your actual argument, the sources in the article are New Jersey Jewish News (a publication of with circulation of 24,000, most town newspapers have more than this) and a link to the website of the school this guy works for. The WP:BEFORE search came up only with the Jewish Standard (again a local publication that also has a circulation around 24,000).--Rusf10 (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, is this yet another article picked out because of his place of residence? I though that there was something seriously wrong before, but this is pretty seriously f-ed up. Alansohn (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Press is not a local paper. I am starting to reach the AGF/ABF line with your many AFD's. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment We all know you point already. Stop with the WP:BLUDGEON. -  Galatz  Talk  23:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems to be a prominent rabbi and Orthodox author. "Local sources" (and The Jewish Press is certainly not a local publication) do not exclude anyone from Wikipedia. Scanlan (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm troubled by the number of deletion proposals that seem to be focused specifically on Teaneck, New Jersey, as well as a handful of other specific communities in NJ and New York. (Hamilton Twp., Rumson, New Jersey, Clinton, New Jersey, among others) Just glancing at the New Jersey deletion proposals, in addition to Howard Jachter listed here, you as have Rabbi Steven Weil, musician Lauren Passarelli, businessman Bill Zanker up for deletion - all residents of Teaneck - as well as the previous proposed deletions of the Mayor of Teaneck list and nearly all of its mayors. I'm sure I could find more if I had more time. This seems troubling and we should proceed with caution with any of these deletions. Scanlan (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's because you and your two buddies have created hundreds of unnecessary articles over the years. You can choose to believe alansohn's wacky theory that I hate Teaneck or you can look at the facts. Can you explain to me why there are 206 articles on mayors from New Jersey (more than any other) and California (a much bigger state) is only at 196? What is troubles me is there is such a low standard for inclusion here.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the number of bio article on California mayors, I can agree with you on that one. I think there was a rash of deletions of California mayors a year or two ago, very similar to what we're seeing now with NJ bios, which was very unfortunate. No question that California political and mayoral bios, and their numbers, should absolutely be expanded. All that said, I honestly hadn't noticed all of the other Teaneck-related deletion proposals (in addition to the mayors) until earlier today and that really should be included and pointed out in these deletion discussions. Just because there's a definite problem with articles related to California (and you are correct about that), doesn't mean we delete massive amounts of bios, lists and content, like Howard Jachter for example, for New Jersey or New York. Also, since Jachter isn't a a mayor, this is more of a specific location issue here. Scanlan (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you do agree with me. I think the number of articles for California (or really any other state) is appropriate. We do not need articles about every mayor of every town everywhere. There has to be some standard of inclusion. As per WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". As for Jachter, who isn't a politician, his notability seems to be even lower than most of the mayors I proposed for deletion.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I have expanded the article with references. Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your sources are mostly local to Earth based sources. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete total failure of notability for academics, and does not meet general notability guidelines. His books are not notable, and the coverage is too local. If he was any other religion, there would be quick deletion, but there is special pleading for notability of Jews, so much so that someone actually tried to argue above that being a rabbi is a notable position.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , when you say that "there is special pleading for notability of Jews", do you mean that just in the ordinary racist way or is there a particularly anti-Semitic subtext to your claim? Can I suggest a drastic refactoring of what comes across as patently offensive in tone? Alansohn (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides which, I don't see anyone arguing that being a rabbi is a notable enough reason. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually you have totally failed to read the discussion, because above someone did explicitly cite the subject being a rabbi as reason to keep the article. Stop crying bigotry against people who state facts. When people in other discussions on notable people in other religious groups try and claim any source too closely connected with that religious group is non-reliable, any attempt to suggest such claim is out of line is greeted with calls for assuming good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I just checked, nobody said that merely for being a rabbi he's notable.Sir Joseph (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "In fact, being a dayan (rabbinical court judge) is an extremely notable position in the Jewish world, as is being the rabbi of a synagogue." (emphasis mine) Am I reading that wrong?????--Rusf10 (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * that was not his vote rationale. And I would also say that being a rabbi of a synagogue is not the same thing as merely being a rabbi, which is the claim above. It's crystal clear anyway that he's not just a rabbi, or even a rabbi of a synagogue.,Sir Joseph (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Clearly you are. Firstly, I am not saying I agree or not with the statement. Secondly, many people are rabbis who are not a rabbi of a synagogue. You have taken those words and turns it into someone actually tried to argue above that being a rabbi is a notable position. You have 100% misquoted. -  Galatz Talk  04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * First, someone actually tried to argue above that being a rabbi is a notable position- You're not quoting me there that would be John Pack Lambert. Second, whether or not a person is rabbi of a synagogue or not is irrelevant to notability. Just as that are many people who are ordained ministers but not minsters of a church. If they are a leader of a church they are still likely not notable (and their church probably isn't notable either).--Rusf10 (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey John Pack Lambert should we be questioning every single LDS Wikipedia page to the extent that people in the Jewish community are being suggested for deletion? What's good for the goose.... Rsarlls (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above proofs of notability. IZAK (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the most bizarre statement I have come across in a long time. Go ahead and nominate for deletion every article on a person whose clearest claim to notability is being an LDS bishop, and see where that gets you. Oh wait, you will not have to do anything. Because no one has ever claim that being an LDS bishop makes someone notable, unlike the claim above that being a rabbi is, see " In fact, being a dayan (rabbinical court judge) is an extremely notable position in the Jewish world, as is being the rabbi of a synagogue". That is an explicit statement that being a rabbi makes someone notable, which is not the case, and which is special pleading. No one wants to go where that will take us. It will open the flood gates to lots and lots and lots of articles. OK, I have to admit some people who say that are probably the extrem advocates of keeping who would say the same for Catholic rectors and many Protestant pastors, but it is a nightmare of poorly sourced, locally sourced, low interest articles waiting to happen, and needs to be clearly said to not be the case at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I apologize for my imprecise language above. To many non-Jews "rabbi" implies that the person is presiding over a synogogue, "priest" implies the person is head of a Catholic parish, and "minister" is used interchangeably with "pastor". Priest and rector are used interchangeably, although it is the rare non-Catholic who knowns the term rector. OK, rector also has a meaning in some other religions that are organizationally similar to Catholicism, like Anglicanism. However, at least in the 19th-century there were so many rectors in Anglicanism who did no actual religious work, turining it all over to a curate, that arguing that they were notable is just bizarre. The "rabbi of a synagoue" argument was made, and clearly needs to be nipped in the bud. Because this is an invitation to disorder. We have never even said that Catholic preists who have responsibility for multiple parishes in a diocese, such as what is seen with a Deanery.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment If being a state judge below a state-wide office is not a sign of notability, I find it hard to believe that being an ecclesiastical judge at the level that Jachter is is anywhere near a default sign of notability. What we are lead to do is fall back on actual sources, and these are local, weak, and not to the level of indepdent reliable sourced coverage we need to show notability. The more we have discussions like this, the more I think we need to create some actual notability guidelines for religious figures, but this is going to be a monumental task, considering that the nature of religious freedom and religious thought means that one has to master a very large array of religious offices, which often involve using the same term for very different offices. Prophet, Apostle and Bishop all in some contexts are applied to people who probably are close to default notability, but I can find people designated with these titles within other religious traditions who are not at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the article? You continue to state that all of us are claiming he's notable merely for being a synagogue rabbi, yet that's not true. You continue to state the sources are all local, and yet that's not true. I understand you're a deletionist but it comes to a point where there are more than enough sources and notability to match even your tough and non-policy guidelines, even for Jewish religious folk. Also, he's not a local judge in the same way a judge in the US is only for a local circuit, that is not how it works. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Even the above mentioned "leader of a church" is ambiguous. This is because Church refers to both the specific location, which has various other names of parish, congregation, ward and some others, and sometimes refers to a larger body. However in some cases of protestantism you have a local congregation that is a fully indepdent Church with no organizational connection to other Churches. In some cases these are notable, especially if the are a "MegaChurch", but in other cases there are congregations of well below 100 people, that have never had coverage outside of a few non-notable blogs and a paid advertisement in the local paper. Judaism, at least as practiced in the US, at times comes close to the level of localized control and synagogue/temple proliferation as seen within Protestantism. However even if a particular synagogue or parish or congregation is notable, this does not mean that all its leaders are. In part because many of these are notable more as buildings than as institutions, but also because not all heads of notable institutions are notable. One good example of this is we accept that msot high schools, especially stabilly established public high schools, are notable. So Sterling Heights High School is notable. That does not mean that my fellow 1999 alumni of that high school, Craig Miller, who is the current principal, or any of the other 5 of 6 people who have served as principals there, are notable. I am probably digressing a lot, but I hope I am impressing on people why someone stating that a rabbi of a synagogue is a notable position is a statement that I feel has to be shot down fully and with power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to keep off-topic, but as I said above I also believe there should be guidelines for religious leaders. However, it is difficult to compare leaders between religions (or even different sects of the same religion). It would take a major effort to decide which leaders would generally be considered notable. However, I believe it should be done for at least the major religions to avoid people putting outrageous claims such as "being the rabbi of a synagogue" is automatically notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unable to find sufficient independent coverage to meet GNG or ANYBIO. Having written several books does not satisfy AUTHOR. -- J04n(talk page) 14:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's almost as if you didn't look at any of the references, or claims of notability. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In many previous AfD that I have been involved in that involve people, the common view is 3-5 WP:RS that talk specifically about the subject as the main focal point, is enough to satisfy WP:GNG, I count more than that here. -  Galatz  Talk  19:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I looked over the sources, and if you weigh them all, the most notable info we have here is about Jewish prenuptual agreements. I see only a handful of moderate sources to demonstrate notability, but not nearly enough based on my experience. I usually don't write an article unless there are 6-8 reliable sources, including at least 2-3 that are indepth profiles, rather than passing mentions. The best sources I could find were this one from the article [] and this one from a Google search []. Most of the other items are quotes or passing mentions - but he's not the focus.  Compare with this article I did for Norman Ciment, notable for being the first orthodox Jewish mayor of a major American city. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't verify the claims of the nomination, which amounted to a WP:VAGUEWAVE anyway.  I non-randomly sampled a couple of the sources in the article, and both were in-depth and showed long-term attention to the topic from the world at large.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is when books are written about subjects, not when subjects write books. Unless those books are notable enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, which is not the case here. Ifnord (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2017 (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.