Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Gafni


 * 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. John254 03:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mordechai Gafni

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There has been a recent tendency to post articles on Wikipedia about disgraced and defrocked rabbis (similarly, see the Rabbi Mordecai Tendler and Aron Tendler articles.) Hopefully this trend is not motivated by antisemitism. This is an entirely WP:NN individual, who practiced as a rabbi, but was forced to resign because of alleged sex scandals. This may be WP:LIBEL and even WP:NOR because not everything has been proven in a court of law and the intent of the article appears to be a one-sided smear to tar and feather this person online, with Wikipedia as the webhost, a violation of WP:NOT (in the sense that Wikipedia is not the place to act out a grudge) and which also violates the writ and spirit of WP:NPOV as well. Note that Category:Sex crimes only has a sub-category of Category:People acquitted of sex crimes and it does not have a sub-category Category:People accused of sex crimes or Category:People convicted of sex crimes and certainly not Category:Rabbis accused of sex crimes. IZAK (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

DELETE'''-Tabloid fodder masquerading as a bio.- --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is thoroughly documented, using ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Notability standard. While the category issue may require clarification, all of the claims are supported with appropriate sources. If there are NPOV concerns, the issues should be addressed by editing or tagging the article, not by deletion. WP:NOT is a new one one me, but this article hardly seems to be an example of that. Alansohn (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the point of using Wikipedia's rules if he is truly not notable as a rabbi? Just because he came on to a few women and it got into the papers, via salacious journalism, that makes him notable? What is "notable" about him? Is he a porn star? They are at least notable for that, but it is an inversion of logic to claim retroactive notability for someone who had he not been fired for his sexual failings would never have merited any mention in an important encyclopedia. Nowhere does it say that one must suspend good judgment and our brains in the name of Wikipedia rules. Perhaps that is why they also have WP:Ignore all rules sometimes. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to WEAK KEEP: I feel I let my bias about the article's overall tone get in the way of being objective on this one. He does have meritable work but I feel the article gives too much weight to the muckraking aspects. This bio is valid but seriously lacks the balance it needs to make it credible.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep he was a powerful rabbi almost as a cult leader and this new age techniques are still used by others to attract Jews. this well sourced by independent reliable newspapers article should not be deleted through Jewish censorship because he had a sexual control issue.--יודל (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Yidisheryid: So then write about that (and bring sources as you would say) but it is a disgrace and shame that this "article" about him is written like an attack piece straight out a text book of how to smear someone you don't like. That is not the way to do business for anyone, least of all an encyclopedia. IZAK (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The issue is about whether the subject has been shown to be notable according to Wikipedia policies, not about the article creator's motivations. There are ample references to get this past WP:V and WP:RS. There is also plenty of non-negative information in the article so it can't be called an attack page. If there are any POV or BLP issues they can be dealt with by editing. (and yes, this is a copy/paste from my comment on Aron Tendler but I couldn't think of anything different to say) Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a dozen highly significant sources. The motiviation for the creation is pure I asure you, I am no antisemite as you imply. On the contrary. I wouldn't attack your motivation for wanting this article deleted, which would be easy (dirty laundry, under the carpet, etc.) because I think you mean well. Lobojo (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- I don't think Philip was trying to imply you are anti-semitic. Looks to me like pro-muckraking but not an anti-semite. The article has some other fluff info but other than that it is top-notch tabloid press. And I thank you for soliciting my discussion page for a vote change but unless that piece gets a major overhaul it needs to go.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, sadly he has made it quite clear now that he feels I am an antisemite, comparable to Der Stummer to quote him. I still dont follow your tabloid point though, this was a very serious scandal that divided the modern orthodox and jewish renewal movements and led to the collapse of Edah. I just asumed you hadnt understood these points. Lobojo (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lobojo, don't twist my words. At no point did I say that you or anyone was an antisemite. Read my words carefully: "Hopefully this trend is not motivated by antisemitism." I was expressing a hope that it is not motivated by antisemitism. You know, you cannot have your cake and eat it by writing multiple attack articles against disgraced Orthodox rabbis and when you are called on it by people who want to understand why, and hope that there is not anything more sinister at work motivating such negative attack journalism, you can't claim innocence. You know, you could take away all the worries by writing an equal amount of articles about notable rabbis who were never involved in scandals. There is after all a huge difference between a muckraker and a serious writer. Or don't you agree? Please act responsibly and do not assume that everyone can tolerate a stream of offensive articles that appear to be aimed as attacks againt Orthodox Judaism and not much else. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Izak, our duty is to assume good faith. It is inappropriate to keep bringing up antisemitism here. If you have a serious concern that makes it hard to AGF, raise your concern elsewhere as a matter of user conduct. Whether we find the article offensive is not a criterion for deletion. As someone who has written on both virtuous and controversial rabbis, I am disturbed by your repeated and unabashed questioning of the motives of those of us involved in this "trend." Yes, Gafni has been attacked in the media and in the Jewish community, but an article on Gafni need not be an "attack article" but simply a description. If the article needs to be balanced with more info about his various work, fine. But please stop rubbing salt into the wounds caused by your previous remarks. HG | Talk 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi HG: My remarks are directly addressed to User only at this time, kindly do not adduce from my remarks any connection to yourself or to anyone else. It is Lobojo who at this time has created articles that reek of prejudice. While he is free to hold any personal views he so desires, Wikipedia is not obligated to tolerate articles that do not follow WP:NPOV. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as you may know, I created the Mordecai Tendler article, hesitantly to be sure, because I thought it was needed to complete the picture. Since I'm voting to keep the Gafni article, my vote arguably implies that I would be willing to create it as well. So I feel that your remarks effect me. Besides, broadbrush inferences of prejudice aimed at one editor should concern all of us. HG | Talk 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, this line of debate stinks, and it is a pity you are using it. Your protected speech though, so you choose. Lobojo (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable. • Lawrence Cohen  18:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. He was becoming a moderately known New Age rabbi prior to the scandal, with writing columns for The Jerusalem Post in the mid-1990s, leading Bayit Chadash, writing books from a (sadly ironic) feminist perspective. Unfortunately, he is quite notable now and exemplifies a problem in seemingly unexpected places. HG | Talk 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is my interpretation of how the leniencies for religious sourcing of religious views intersect with the strictures required by WP:LIBEL in a case like this: I believe that per WP:LIBEL allegations themselves of this nature need to be sourced to independent mainstream media. Unlike religious matters (positions on Jewish law and practice, notability within the field of religion, and similar), allegations implicating WP:LIBEL can't be sourced to religious sources. Once the allegations are independently sourced, reactions and comments from figures within the religious world can then be sourced to religious sources. However, I believe that any potentially defamatory claims or statements (statements of fact) about what he did made in religious sources cannot be included if they go beyond what the statements sourced to independent mainstream media say. In its current state, the article sources some allegations to religious and tabloid rather than mainstream media sources, and I believe this needs to be corrected. Will attempt to sort it out after shabbos and see if what's left is still sufficiently sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Translation please I'm not sure I follow your distincition. But if you are arguing that the Jewish Week is a poor source because it religious you would be wrong on both those points! All the sources are from major publications. Lobojo (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm equally baffled. None of the sources provided are "religious", other than the fact that they are Jewish-oriented or Hebrew language publications. One would be hard pressed to label Haaretz or Yediot Aharonot as "religious" publications, or to impugn the veracity of material from these sources as being somehow less reliable in addressing potential libel issues. These are all independent reliable and verifiable sources. The bottom line is that there is no basis for the claim that "allegations implicating WP:LIBEL can't be sourced to religious sources." Alansohn (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In this case I agree New York's The Jewish Week won an award for its coverage of the Baruch Lanner affair, has a large circulation and professional staff, and can stand as a general journalism source. I am not sure that I would accept every local Jewish community newsletter as a reliable source for a claim implicating WP:LIBEL. As to what I mean by religious sources, Moshe Feinstein's igrot Moshe is undoubtedly a reliable sources on Halakha, but if he decided a Jewish-law question implicating defamatory matters we could use him to descibe the halakhic issues but WP:LIBEL would prevent us from even naming the parties unless the issue was also covered by journalists or similar. This is the distinction I was trying to make. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources are sufficient, probably for notability prior to the criminal events--but most certainly for international notability afterwards. I do not se the distinctions above: published reports in reliable sources are published reports, whether the sources are religious or secular. DGG (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (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.