Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosheh Twersky


 * 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. Doesn't appear to be anything significant to merge that isn't already in the Yeshiva Toras Moshe article. Shi meru  03:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mosheh Twersky

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Israeli rabbi, search (news, books, scholar) produces a woeful lack of sources, insufficient to establish notability. I anticipate a number of editors will rush here proclaiming he is a "gadol" (a "great") -- but I suspect we won't see anyone producing sources to substantiate those opinions. As best I can tell, the only raison d'etre for this article is his lineage, on which see WP:NOTINHERITED. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete in line with WP:CSD: "An article about a real person, ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." --Qwfp (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actually, this article does make a plausible claim (running a seminary). However, the real problem is that there are no substantive sources that support the claim and demonstrate its notability. In this sense, this article is actually quite similar to the one for Tzvi Berkowitz, where the references are similarly irrelevant (this one is typical). I will point out that the AfD for that article was inexplicably closed as "keep", so this one may again surprise us. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC).
 * I read it as saying his wife runs a seminary, a plausible claim of notability for her, but not him. --Qwfp (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point – I took it as "His wife is the daughter of Rabbi Abba Berman, the late rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Iyun HaTalmud, and (he) runs the Hadar Seminary for Women in Jerusalem" – either way, I think we agree on the disposition of this article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete This person is not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not inherited and Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi David: You are not applying the policy of WP:NOTDIR correctly in this case simply because there is no other way to look at the subject of the Brisk tradition and Soloveitchik dynasty, because they are, er, a famous rabbinic dynasty, as is well known and not disputed in the Torah world or among Talmudic scholars. See also Category:Hasidic dynasties where fame and positions are only inherited dynasty-style and that in turn does make them notable. That's just the way it works in the Haredi and Hasidic circles. This is a case where Wikipedia rules and policies run counter to the reality and facts of a serious subject in Judaism. Perhaps in this case you should go by WP:IGNORE that sometimes also works better than other rules. Hopefully you are well-acquainted with this subject -- and rabbinic dynasty -- and family before you dismiss them all. IZAK (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as above, Notability is not inherited and WP:CSD. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and if not, Merge and Redirect to Yeshiva Toras Moshe where he has a major position in the yeshiva world. Let's be sensible and fair and not shoot Wikipedia in the foot and deprive it of important information (see the chart Mosheh Twersky, you can't chop of "branches" based on mis-applying Wikipedia rules). This is a rabbi-stub that needs time to evolve. More input could have been requested from Judaic editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM, some may have been up to the task of improving this stub. While many famous rosh yeshivas (deans of Talmudic academies) and maggidei shiur (Talmudic lecturers) do not have enough PR and stuff written by and about them, they are nevertheless notable in the Torah world especially of Haredi Judaism. He holds a serious position due to his Talmudic skills and status and not just by dint of his "inheritance" where in any case, especially in the instance of the Brisk tradition and Soloveitchik dynasty he is very notable, one of very few senior lecturers in Talmud. The nominator needs to be very carefully how he applies WP:NOTINHERITED because it can be just as easily applied to the likes of Prince Harry of Wales and Jenna Bush etc etc etc who have done nothing but are purely the products of "inherited fame" and nothing else. IZAK (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the same sort of special pleading you've floated in other, similar AFDs, like for Tzvi Berkowitz, which essentially goes: if you're not jewish, you can't possibly grasp the notability of (subject name here), so you should just believe my testimonial that this person is indeed notable, even though there aren't any of your wiki "sources" that demonstrate my claim. The Berkowitz case earned a nonsensical verdict of "keep", even though quite a number of people, including myself and David Eppstein pointed out that there were 0 WP:RS, but rather only random web flotsam. This article has precisely the same problem, which is why Nomoskedasticity brought it here. The second part of your speech is nothing more than WP:WAX. If you have substantive reliable sources, please add them to the article so we can all have a look. It would certainly compel folks, including myself, to consider changing their !votes. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Agri: Firstly you choose a very poor example of so-called, ahem, "random web flotsam" when it is actually the opposite, an excellent example of a grouping of America's senior rabbis who deal with Orthodox Iranian Jews and it's an affiliate and inherent part of the prestigious Ner Israel Yeshiva in Baltimore. So you show that you know nothing yet again about this subject by choosing to denigrate the website of an important Iranian Jewish religious project in the USA headed by an elite group of Orthodox rabbis and Rabbi Tzvi Berkowitz is one of them. Honestly, there is no need to get so worked up. If attacking me (violating WP:NPA) makes you feel better go ahead, it has nothing to do with the subject before us. I came across this article today and looked at it dispassionately. I have no qualms in nominating articles about rabbis for deletion or merging, I can back that up, I have done it and and I do it. At any rate, why are you dragging the Rabbi Tzvi Berkowitz AfD verdict in here? It was obviously kept on its merits. Not all articles need to have Harvard or Oxford level sources backing them up, especially articles about living Talmudists who are doing their job, are very notable in their field, hold impressive positions in specialized schools, in this case elite yeshivas of note (and there are few of these around I assure you), and any article starts with the assumption that the editors and users creating it have some knowledge of the subject, that is the way Wikipedia was built up and written for a long time. Feel free to ask for sources or to learn how such men are notable, but to run in and literally attack them and the editors who wrote the articles, as well as myself for simply trying to explain the subject matter is unscholarly, useless and counter-productive. A WP:STUB does not have to have sources, it needs to be built up. What don't I get? After all, this article/stub is not about the janitor or cook or fixer-man of the ruddy place, it's about one of its senior Talmud lecturers, a rarity that requires specialized education to attain and sensitivities to appreciate, like appreciating forms of art. Hope I am making my point rather than being attacked for defending what is obviously important to people in this field. IZAK (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes yes: reply to substantive criticism with more pleading and try to reframe as WP:PA. I think a quote by David Eppstein from the Berkowitz case is particularly apt here: "I trust IZAK that this is an important person within his community. But the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not importance, but notability: can his significance be verifiably documented through reliably published third-party sources? The sourcing in this article is very poor, and I was unable to find much better in a Google news archive search. So I am left only with the word of our subject-expert editors that he is important, and while I believe them I don't think that should be sufficient grounds for inclusion." So, in other words, web sites and testimonials aren't acceptable as sources here. Circumventing this fact, as you've proved so adept at doing, tends to devolve all of wikipedia into a "superset of facebook". I now repeat: can you please cease further pleading and just furnish any substantive, reliable sources that would support this person's notability? Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Izak, thanks for confirming my prediction that we would see keep !votes but no sources establishing notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomo: So far, I'm the only one who said anything about "Keep" and even so I suggested it may be worth it to "Merge and Redirect" to Yeshiva Toras Moshe the yeshiva he is a senior Talmud lecturer at, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. And yes, a senior lecturer in Talmud at a major yeshiva is a rarity and worthy of some biographical mention in an encyclopedia that wishes to include personalities based on the input and discretion of editors who know something about the subject. There are no doubt many Imams, Ayatollahs, vicars, bishops, priests and holy people of all sorts who are around, that would not easily be removed for fear that their editors would pounce, so it's all very well to pick on these easy soft targets, rather than starting sensible discussions with editors at WP:JUDAISM who may have more input. What is illogical about this? IZAK (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2010 (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.