Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howshua Amariel


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Howshua Amariel

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject is not notable; no third-party references Itsmejudith (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This article is lengthy, detailed, reasonably well-sourced, and interesting. Most importantly, you haven't made any real argument for deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fumoses (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete = I found a lot of the references were either published by people related to Mr. Amariel, or were not about Mr. Amariel at all (for instance, one reference is a photo of Danny Glover at a protest). There were a couple of what looked like human-interest stories in newspapers about his activism, but that's it as far as sources that don't seem to be Mr. Amariel himself.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep there are enough reliable third-party sources for a short article. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 04:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * i've added a list below of the sources that i think are good enough that the article shouldn't be deleted. a reasonable article from these sources could be at most a few paragraphs in length. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There are hardly any reliable third-party sources. We have a 419 word article in the Jerusalem Post and a couple of mentions about his actions during the 2001 Republican National Convention. (One problem is that there is so many of the references are pretty much junk it's hard to separate any wheat from the chaff). There is certainly no evidence of notability for his self-published translation. Being lengthy, detailed or interesting are not relevant to whether it should be kept. I think it fails WP:Notability (people) which calls for the person to have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[which multiple coverage of the same thing is not] and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. So far as I can see, the subject clearly fails these criteria. Doug Weller (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Doug Weller and nom. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 17:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 17:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Capoccia (talk • contribs) 19:29, 21 October 2008
 * Good sources
 * Comment Your first source is someone's self-published article. Your second source is just an entry in the Library of Congress copyright catalog -- a copyright claim, it certainly doesn't prove notability. Then there is the 419 word article I already mentioned, and 2 references to the same article by Paul Shepard (ignore the titles, didn't you read the article?). These don't meet the criteria for notability I describe above. Doug Weller (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the two ap articles are different. you must have only read the beginning. the last paragraph of the one in the la times isn't in the one from the seattle times, and the last 18 paragraphs in the seattle times article aren't in the la times article. but regardless, i think i could pick just one of the ap articles and meet the notability guidelines. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was only interested in the bit about the subject of the article, and for that purpose they are one article (and I suspect what you see as a difference is just 2 editors's versions of a longer article. The coverage is trivial, and If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability;. Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, you've quoted that sentence a few times now. what you haven't done is show where the line is for substantial and not substantial and why the Frenkel and Shepard sources are below that line. the notability guideline you're quoting from sure doesn't give a firm line. it says a 200-page biography is good enough and a birth certificate or a 1-line listing in an election ballot aren't. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 04:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OFF TOPIC
 * all you deletionists should head over to the 36 thousand french commune articles. about 90% of these should be deleted. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I changed the formating on some of User:Chris Capoccia's comments so that the log page would be correctly formatted. I have no opinion on this deletion in particular. --Phirazo (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, and because "Howshua Amariel" is promoting a self-created cult that is quasi-Judaic with his own concocted theories that would violate WP:NEO and WP:NOR. The article itself violates WP:NOTMYSPACE and WP:BIO as well as Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. IZAK (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. Not notable, and this is not the place for advocacy, soapboxing and OR. Verbal   chat  18:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The debate over this article's deletion is silly. It's presence on this page is only because the author of the article kept the underconstruction sign up pass the seven day limit, yet did do serious changes to the page.  The person who put this up was only doing what policy stated.  The individual is obviously notable because he has enough 2nd and 3rd party sources that cover his story.  From the Jerusalem post, Seatle times, Israeli News, and etc.


 * Aaron Cohen's article is posted on a page under editorial review (as respected by Wiki policy), not to mention that the source itself mentioned several Israeli scholars to back it up. His notability is seen in not simply one area but the various areas in which he deals with or in other words... reparations, Hebrew translation, I guess something about civil rights for Black Jews and recently something with the Obama campaign and Rabbis for Obama.


 * The article doesn't come under the NOTMYSPACE thing because it wasn't made by Amariel himself and from the Talk page I would say that the author applied Wiki policy of a netral point of view.


 * Izak statements have a obvious bias to whoever Amariel is with. I saw videos on from Israeli news that disprove all that.  I think it should be consider that the issue is simi-controversial and may effect some judgements on this discussion; that may be seen from this discussion or more surrounding the activities and issues of his son.


 * As for the remark about advocacy, the article doesn't influency anyone's positions on the issues mentioned and I think that this discussion page alone proves it, but this article does state particle issues that one subject has or is dealing with and received media coverage based upon, yet not limited to. The blanks are filled it with the second party source of the organization he works with and the first person source of his website (both of which are allowed).

The fact is that the page should remain based upon its real connection to the various subjects it touches upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.123.59 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * — 77.125.123.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment The under construction sign was gone before the page was tagged for AfD. To the closing Admin, I note that the IP editor above has never edited anything other than this page. And what does Aaron Cohen have to do with this? Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * uhm… newsflash! there is more than one aaron cohen in the world. the one who's important for this discussion is not your israeli special forces dude. he's the guy who wrote this article about amariel. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * More than one Aaron Cohen? What a shock. But I should have remembered it. How can a self-published article be important for this discussion? Anyone can write an article and have it posted there. It's basically an advertising site -- "Submitting articles has become one of the most popular means of generating quality backlinks and targeted traffic to your website.". Definitely not a reliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep I detect a degree of bias on the discussion page where the first person to challenge this article raised "the rather important fact that Howshua Amariel is a "Black Hebrew" and a Messianic Jew, and hence not accepted as either a rabbi or even a Jew by the vast majority of Jews." This may be true but is irrelevant to his notability. Depending on your religious beliefs you must believe that at least some important religions began as "self-created cults". You can get notable cranks. PatGallacher (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2008 (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.