Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Weinberger (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Moshe Weinberger
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. He is popular, but writing one book and being a "professor" and rabbi of a synagogue doesn't seem to meet the bar for inclusion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk)  18:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk)  18:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. He is definitely notable, though you wouldn't know it from the sources on this page. I'll start working on it. Yoninah (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a rabbi who by his nature will be unlikely to appear in mainstream media. The article listed in Mishpacha magazine is major coverage, but the article isn't available online as the newspaper has almost no web presence in a community that doesn't use the Internet for casual purposes. The sources already in the article establish notability even with the systemic bias here. Alansohn (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The information culled from the "sources" is all WP:SYNTH. The article itself is full of WP:PEACOCK. If I could, I would blank it right now, but I'm willing to work on it. I own the Mishpacha issue and will start improving this article. Yoninah (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing about the quality of the article, all of which can be better addressed by editing than by deletion. As you have a copy of the article, do you think that the Mishpacha piece is comprehensive coverage?
 * Actually, I have a different Mishpacha article, and am trying to obtain the 2005 piece from the publisher. In the meantime, I've found plenty of other reliable sources in Google searches. Still working on it... Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rewrite completed. Yoninah (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't believe that a Prezi presentation is given as a source, and used multiple times. There are a number of other sources that I do not think are independent: all of the links to the congregation; the Torah downloads site (which says "TorahDownloads.com is worked on by volunteers who share the Rotzon to be Marbitz Torah (spread Torah)." - thus a crowd-sourced, amateur site.) What remains may be enough for notability, but the sources need to be cleaned up by someone who knows the area. LaMona (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * the WP:PRIMARY source aishkodesh.org was used only twice to verify personal information, which is allowed, to my understanding. However, I have removed it as a source, along with Torah Downloads and prezi.com. The remaining sources are all independent, reliable refs. Yoninah (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing NominationI struck out my delete comment. I think at this point in time the article is sourced well enough to not be deleted. It's still a work in progress but should not be at AFD. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2016 (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.