Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rietti


 * 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   merge - this discussion was flawed from the get-go as this is not the correct forum for discussing potential merges. That said, there is a fairly strong mandate to merge this material, and I will tag it as such - but the final decision as to whether or not to merge should come as a result of a proper discussion, not an AfD. Shereth 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Rietti

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

Merge and Redirect to the Gateways article because he has been its leading lecturer almost since its founding and it his been his base and "claim to fame" so that this article not be a violation of Content forking. Also fails Notability (people) as a serious rabbi. Also seems to be a violation WP:NOTADVERTISING. (See also Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard about Gateways' founder in this regard.) IZAK (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Gateways article for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   IZAK (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if all you want is a merge and not deletion, it doesn't need to be brought to AfD. Do the merge and close this discussion. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I contest your recommendation on the following basis:
 * Rabbi Rietti is surely a candidate for notability, and I assert that this notability is independant of his ties to Gateways. He may happen to be a senior lecturer for the organization, but his affilitation with it has merely increased public awareness of his existence; it is not the be all and end all of Rabbi Rietti.  Rietti has been engaged in youth education for 22 years, both as a teacher and an administration, and is known for espousing the Montessori method of training in Jewish education.  He is a noted author and lecturer throughout the continental United States and his educational and inspirational material is both studied and experiences by many thousands of individuals each year.
 * This is not an example of content forking -- Rietti existed as a noted individual prior to joining Gateways and will remain a prominent individual even after a proverbial sudden demise of Gateways, should that occur. Gateways does not exist because of Rietti and he does not exist because of Gateways.  It is merely his job -- he is not his job.
 * This is not an advertisement. The fact that a link included in that article is for a website entitled Jewish Inspiration is a far cry from linking to amazon.com.  The fact is that Rietti is an author and a lecturer and this website, in addition to offering opporunities for purchase of his lectures, is a collection of information about Rabbi Rietti, as well as information as to how he in involved in Gateways.  As more information is included in the article as it expands, citations will be included from sources other than from the back cover of his lecture albums.
 * Serious Rabbi? -- what is this supposed to mean? Is he ingenuine and secretly promoting a different religion or stirring up rebellion?  Is he a court jester rabbi?  This sort of personal attack cannot be tolerated!!
 * I especially contest your method of assertion, placing what appears to be two votes for merge and redirect, which may sway others to agree with a majority consisting of two of your votes. While this may have been unintentional, removal of one of your votes is critical.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 13:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no two votes by me, only one. The first is the nomination. I have not used different sigs and I never do. The second is my vote. This is not uncommon. He is an Orthodox kiruv rabbi, one of thousands like him, and at no time was it said that he is a court jester etc. Not every Aish HaTorah, Ohr Somayach and Chabad rabbi gets his own page on Wikipedia. Please assume good faith. IZAK (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your heading + vote is misleading. Why are the words merge and redirect bolded in your "heading," and why is redirect capitalized both times?  It appears suspiciously similar to how votes appear on article for deletion voting pages -- namely, in bold.  Should I embolden and capitalize the word Keep every time I use the word here?  Why not simply make your point with persuasive text rather than sensationalistic headings that appear as a vote?
 * Did I make an article for every Gateways rabbi? No.  Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher are giants in their field.  Rabbi Suchard founded Gateways, and Rabbi Noah Weinberg, the founder of Aish, has an article.  Why don't you recommend merging that?  Your logic is flawed, or at least ill presented.  Rabbi Rietti is an accomplished author and lecturer divorced from his involvement in Gateways.  He wrote The One Minute Masmid, and has about 195 lectures currently available on tape, CD and mp3 format.  He is a commonly featured speaker at parlor meetings in the northeast United States and perhaps elsewhere as well.  He has advanced training in education and was a teacher/administrator for 22 years.  He provides private counseling -- and this is all separate and distinct from Gateways.  Did Gateways propel him to further popularity -- probably if not definitely.  Is it who he is?  Absolutely not!  Rabbi Slifkin has an article, even though he wrote a bunch of books and one of his books in particular, The Challenge of Creation, has its own article.  He is similarly not his book and his book does not define him.  What exactly is the issue other than the inadequately expressed and supported one above that poorly claims that Rabbis Rietti, and Suchard, for that matter, do not merit articles merely because they work for an organization that itself possesses an article?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DRosenbach: I appreciate your sincere concerns but you are veering off into too many tangents. Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher may well deserve full blown articles at some stage, but at this time, all the information in the articles about them, indeed the few "citations" in those articles are just taken from Gateways brochures, so that if Gateways itself feels that it can combine them, and if it does not issue copious biographies of those rabbis, there is certainly no need for Wikipedia at this time to devote separate biographies for them. I am not advocating that the information be deleted and lost but that it be moved to the main Gateways article at this time, because Gateways without Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher is not Gateways. Your comparisons to other noted rabbis do not add up either at this time either. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than argue on your rather subjective points, I will argue on the more objective ones in hopes of settling this argument. I notice a turn in your focus; it is no longer notability concerns but the merit of the articles to deserve existence based on length and bredth of coverage.  WP:DEL  clearly states that [a]rticles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into a larger article or list.  This does not apply to any of the articles in question, as there is clearly more information that exists but has just not been added to the articles yet.  Suchard's article is merely 3 days old, and even Rietti's, which is several weeks old, possesses the objective quality of "expandability" - rather than insert information without proper citation and precision, the information provided about his biography is forthcoming and will be added in time.  There is no violation in creating a stub for a notable person, and as it is quite evident that the consensus has gathered around a confidence in notability, what sense is there to demand a merge when it is against both policy, and in the consensus opinion so far, common sense.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For the creator of the Gateways article it would have been wiser to put in all the comprehensive information into it first, about its founding director Rabbi Suchard and about its two leading full time employees Rabbis Rietti and Becher who work for Gateways and Rabbi Suchard. Then, as the information about them and their whole operation would have beeen expanded with more sources, separate biographies about the rabbis could be an outgrowth down the line. It makes no sense writing one article about a small institution and then creating individual articles about three of its four full time rabbis. Therefore, the current approach of writing up separate articles about the organization and three of its rabbis is redundant, even if the rabbis have a somewhat broader resume, they are presently strongly indentified with, and work exclusively for, Gateways, AFAIK. IZAK (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Objectively, that is not absolute policy, and it is not even a relative policy -- If I believe that they each desrve their own aricle and can back up my belief with sources and citations to that end, then they effectively merit their own articles. What policy does state, ironically, is that articles should not be merged when the potential for expansion exists, as cited above.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

*Merge per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. No deletion rational given, AFD is not cleanup and it's not a merge discussion.  Actually, this nomination seems rather "pointed" and very mildly disruptive as a nomination as it was started to coincide/distract from Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard.  Nothing to delete here.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep based on sources provided meeting the Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rationale here is essentially delete and merge, which is contrary to §4(I) of the GFDL as edit histories of merged text must be preserved. Per WP:BEFORE, "Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." MrPrada (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because -- while I'm sure he's a fine rabbi -- he's only starting to make a name for himself but he hasn't gotten there yet. Not enough coverage by useful media and nothing really notable yet for an encyclopedia. To the extent there's anything notable, it can be merged into suitable articles (e.g., as Izak suggests). Thanks. HG | Talk 08:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per rationale given by HG. Admittedly this is a marginal case but this material would probably be more appropriate at the Gateways article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect Based on the content of his biography, Rabbi Rietti doesn't seem notable at this time. Perhaps at some future time he will be notable; he should have an encyclopedia article at that time. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable religious leader. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. The nominator has not requested deletion. The talk page is the place to discuss merging, not AfD. If consensus can't be reached there you can ask for outside opinion at WP:RFC. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Gateways. Culturalrevival (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to the Gateways article. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - maybe warrants mention on Gateways page if he is one of their main speakers, but NN for separate article at this time. Looks promising, with God's help, may he be successful. --Shuki (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Request a Mistrial

I would like to request a "mistrial" of sorts -- I was under the assumption that articles did not have to added to Wikipedia fully-formed, but that they could be added as stubs and expanded over time -- silly me, I thought that was the point of a wiki. The article has been greatly modified from the content and format that has been voted on by everyone above, and as such, perhaps a new vote is in order, should IZAK still feel that his point is sound.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 05:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi DRosenbach: What "mistrial"? Noone and nothing is "on trial" here! Firstly, the "improvements" to the article are all from Orthodox Jewish outreach sources that all strive to advertise and promote the work of organisations like Gateways and its rabbis, and Gateways and its rabbis have access to and influence over many of these sources. Secondly, any article can start and exist as a Stub and be given time to grow. I have often advocated for such positions when subjects are clearly notable in their own right by any and all known Wikipedia standards. However, the present situation is not like that, because even if the article/biography about Rabbi Rietti grew, the reality of the past ten years remains that since he has been a long time employee of Gateways and he continues to serve as one of its chief lecturers at their seminars etc, the article about him should be part of the Gateways article, giving the information about his earlier background in that context would be important as it would explain why he is important to Gateways and its mission, and as that grows there may be a valid reason to create a separate article for him later on. To repeat, it makes no sense to create an article about a relatively small Orthodox outreach organization and at the same time to try create articles about three of its of four or five full time rabbis in violation of Content forking, primarily defined as: "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject" and in this case it is intentional. IZAK (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * relatively small Orthodox outreach organization
 * What does relatively mean? I'd say Gateways is very large and rapidly becoming one of the most popular Jewish outreach organizations.  They rent out hotels for Jewish holidays and thousands of people visit these hotels each year to spend their holiday with and hear lectures from the Gateways speakers.  Then there are the other 6 divisions of Gateways -- hardly a small operation.  So it does make a lot of sense to make an article about it and any of their speakers who are extremely notable.
 * Compared to Chabad, Aish HaTorah and NCSY it is tiny. Just look at its full time staff and see why it's very small. Rabbi Buchwald's NJOP is much bigger and they don't request articles for every last rabbi who teaches for them and there are hundreds of them. Not to mention non-Orthodox rabbis who do not get biographies even though they may lead congregations that numbers in the hundreds and even the thousands yet their biographical information gets mentioned in the context of being the rabbi/s of their synagogues and not as you wish to do here by having separate articles for the Gateways article and also for four of its five or so full time rabbis, which is over-reaching by any standard. IZAK (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject
 * That's just it. Gateways is but a part of Rabbi Rietti's life.  He is has recorded 195 lectures and people through America buy them and listen to them.  He has yet to go platinum, but 195 albums is 195 more than I have recorded, and probably 195 more than most people have recorded.  He is also an author of at least 2 texts.  He has also been featured on a radio show numerous times.  Your assertion is incorrect - his article and the Gateways article do not treat the same subject.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 06:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Many rabbis record their lectures and they sell them, he is no exception. He goes on some radio shows and many of them are sponsored. It does not make him into a great and notable sage. He is basically a salesman for Orthodox and Haredi Judaism trying to convince people to become religious and his texts are similarly geared. All this fits beautifully with the Gateways mission, but at this time it is hard to see why he should get a full blown biography. IZAK (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * God is in management and rabbis are in marketing; God decided what the Torah is all rabbis market the Torah - that is their job. Salesmen who are notable because they are considered the top salesmen in America are still notable, whether or not you want to buy their product, and "great sagehood" is not yet a criterion for notability on Wikipedia.  The disdain exuded by your comments is clouding your objectivity.  Are you suggesting that the Beatles article be deleted (or deleted, redirected and moved) because they are famous for doing something that makes them money?  And we can't possibly have every band get an article, so no bands can have an article?  That seems to be your basis premise, or at least it is now, because your premise continually shifts as the target of your attack becomes sufficiently protected with logic, reason, citation, source and objective fact.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking for God by anyone will not help this discussion. This should not get into a theological debate because it is not what this (or any) AfD is about. Noone is debating the roles or powers of God here. But there are certainly different classes of rabbis. Some are great scholars of the law, and others are..., well, preachers, but while many scholars earn their articles by dint of their vast erudition and scholarship that is known to other scholars, the preachers and "salesmen", while they may be well-liked by many people, cannot be classed in the category of notability as great scholars and rabbis, such as rosh yeshivas and Chasidic Rebbes for example. Even in the Baal teshuva world their are standards for greatness and notability, and while not every Chabad, Aish HaTorah and Ohr Somayach rabbis get their own biographies, only the very exceptional ones merit them after careful scrutiny by editors like us. That is why there was once even a project of Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week where such matters we are discussing could be debated, but has been dormant, and the result is that each new biography must be debated on a case by case basis, which is what we are doing here and you need to WP:AGF about that. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion about religion and it has never been one. This is a discussion about an article's merit to exist.  Rabbi Rietti speaks nationwide and has been cited with sources as one of the most sought after speakers in Jewish outreach.  Jewish outreach and their supporters are hardly esoteric, as would be speakers of an underwater basketmaking organization.  How can his notability be put into question when there are currently no rules put into place and, as you said, there is no uniform regulatory oversight.  To apply arbitrary regulations retroactively is unfair.  Who is to say that Rabbi Rietti is ordinary and not extraordinary -- you and the people who vote "per IZAK" because you have swayed them with your claims?  I say he is extraordinary and have provided independant, third-party verification.  Your assertions that these sources are invalid because they co-sponsor events with Gateways is ludicrous -- the sister organizations, as well as unaffiliated organizations, secure this and other rabbis to speak precisely because the are excellent and exceed expectations, they are not claimed to be excellent because they have been secured and increased attendance is desired.  While I have done my best to follow policy and respect the rule of law, you have done nothing but state your personal opinion and violate Wikipedia regulations, including WP:AFD, WP:DEL, WP:MERGE and claims of consensus - this is not even a valid forum within which to put merge to a vote.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 14:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * NOTE: See related Articles for deletion/Mordechai Becher. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The key difference between the Jonathan Rietti and the Mordechai Becher articles is that Mordechai Becher's lectures and writings have been picked up by institutions that have a reputation for reliability for what is and isn't notable in the Jewish religious world, while Jonathan Rietti's lectures and works so far seem to have been largely self-published. To me, this is all the difference. In the one case we can apply a reasonable interpretation of the Wikipedia notability criteria and find a keep with integrity and clear documentation. In the other case, we can't. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does someone have to write an independantly published book to be notable? Rabbi Rietti is a much sought after speaker throughout America, which has been substantiated by articles and press releases put out by almost every Jewish outreach organization in America.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Five independant news outlet citations have been provided to support his notability.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 21:22, 16 June 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.