Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein


 * 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 &mdash; Caknuck 20:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Biography of a living rabbi that does not appear especially notable. No reliable secondary sources have been put forward to establish notability or verify any of the information in the article beyond IMBD, a blog and a class listing. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't seem notable (other than writing that NN book). - Rjd0060 23:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Snow Seems to have created enough synergy in his legal and religious areas of expertise that he seems to be regarded as notable by reliable sources in both worlds. See for example,  , plus publication of his book by Artscroll, a well-known religious publisher who vet the books they publish for religious reliability. While these sources aren't enough to verify a bio, they do tend to  suggest that non-notability is by no means clear-cut, there may well be enough notability for a keep here. I intend to wait a few days and see how the sources measure up before reaching a conclusion. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep holds the Sydney M. Irmas Adjunct Chair in Jewish Law and Ethics at Loyola Law School -- an important law school. They probably know what they're doing fairly well, well enough to appoint only distinguished scholars. He has a number of publications in mainstream Jewish scholarship--I added them to the article. I consider hs other positions additional indication of notability.DGG (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 04:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, if left in would probably be an orphan article. MarsRover 06:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. The publications listed in the article all come from his page at Loyola. If this is an exhaustive list, it is not particularly impressive. Publishing is what academics do and there is no evidence that this stuff had an above average impact. --Crusio 09:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this article about a most notable rabbi that meets all the criteria of WP:BIO, WP:CITE and WP:N. A simple Google search for "Yitzchok Adlerstein" proves his fame beyond any shadow of a doubt. Thank you, IZAK 12:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The article has been fully upgraded and Wikified and now meets all Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. The nominator is requested to withdraw the nomination. IZAK 12:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; The subject of a biography needs to have coverage from reliable sources. This means articles about that person, not simply mentioning them or quoting them.  The sources added to the article are all either by rabbi Adlerstein, or simply mention him in passing (with, possibly, a quote); excepting a short bio blurb on the Ethics Center (which is not independent since the rabbi is associated with them).  At this time, I do not beleive the guidelines on notability have been met, and I am loathe to interpret them liberally since this is a biography of a living person.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Coren that notability has not been established and maintain my delete vote above. --Crusio 14:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of you seem to miss the point. The subject here is a rabbi (books, movies documentaries are not made about living rabbis, and Jews constitute atiny fraction of the world's poopulation) and Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is more than notable with multiple reports about him in the non-Jewish mainstream press and media, the many books he has written that are widely read in the Orthodox community, this is far, far more than anything said about the vast majority of people in Category:Orthodox rabbis about whom very little is written and hundreds of them have articles in Wikipedia, since they are known and accepted in the Jewish Orthodox world. Generally, in Orthodx Judaism, biographies about rabbis are not written, especially if they are alive. One judges the rabbis by his own writings, teachings, publications, and influence as a teacher and leader. An AfD discussion assesses whether the topic is a notable and verifiable topic, which this is. Religious sources are considered reliable sources for religious matters, including whether a religious figure is considered notable in the field of religion. Notability in the field is now in the article as well as in the general media, is the standard, and that is met here. Thank you, IZAK 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, IZAK, but that doesn't hold. To be notable in an encyclopedic way, we need independent sources, as Coren explained. That really does not need to be a complete biography, movie, or documentary. If that were the standard, very few people would indeed make Wikipedia! You write that "One judges the rabbis by his own writings, teachings, publications, and influence as a teacher and leader." That would very much seem like original research to me, with the writer of the Wiki article deciding who is notable or not.... Without independent sources I will remain unconvinced. --Crusio 16:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So far, this article is bettter than most about rabbis because it cites media sources such as the New York Times and many others. That is not being made up by people on Wikipedia. Take a look at the hundreds of articles in Category:Orthodox rabbis do you propose to start a witch-hunt of rabbis on Wikipedia and to delete all of them based on what you claim now? What a joke. The point is that Wikipedia editors do play a role and they have sifted out and still sift out names that are non-notable by evaluating the rabbis' writings and standing in Orthodox Judaism, but in this case you are making a huge mistake. Guaranteed. IZAK 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note that the fact that other, equivalently lacking articles exist is not a sufficient rationale for keeping this one. If anything, it is a signal that perhaps those other articles should also be looked at.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this convinces me that you do not understand how these biographies and articles are accumulated. Jews are a tiny people and the way their rabbis' standing is arrived at is by what they have written or what is written about them within Orthodox Judaism. They have notability as writers and scholars otherwise they would not be notable rabbis. You are using distorted thinking, that a rabbi is notable if wikipedia says he is so, however since rabbis are not judged by Wikipedia, one must assume that the standards they use are reliable. One would need a familiarity with Jewish texts and scholarship to know the real answer. You are obviously falling into the trap of WikiLawyering: "...Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; Asserting that the technical interpretation of Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." The article fulfils. Note also: Notability (people): "...biography guideline is not Wikipedia policy; rather, it is advice gathered from consensus via discussions and established practice..." and there are no guidelines yet specified for rabbis as far as I can tell. IZAK 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 12:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete until someone proves the importance of this person by other means than stuffing the introduction with unsubstantiated terms like "important" or "leading exponent". For what I can read, he seems to be a noted only among a very particular and closed community. Rama 15:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be true of all Orthodox rabbis. IZAK 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * By "very particular and closed community" I do not mean orthodox judaism, but "the set of people who are interested in Yitzchok Adlerstein", the cardinality of which is, by your sources, three (two, excluding Yitzchok Adlerstein). That is what I call "very particular and closed community". Rama 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rama: A simple Google search for "Yitzchok Adlerstein" proves his fame and notability beyond any shadow of a doubt, way beyond a closed community so I don't know what you are talking about. This is not about a rabbi hiding in some far-off shtetl, he is about as famous and notable as any rabbi can get in an open far-flung Jewish Orthodox community in the USA. Probably every Orthodox Jew who reads Jewish books and magazines in English knows of him. This is proven with all the citations in the article. We can't create rabbis that don't exist because this is what they are. I don't know what you or any of the others here voting to delete are thinking. If the rabbi was indeed a minor figure I would vote to delete, but his writings and his name are so oft-used and widespread that he is simply too notable in this case. IZAK 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? This looks like what you obtain when you submit the name of any popular blogger in Google! Where are the mainstream newspapers ? The academic references ? Rama 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said you should look at the blogs?, look for the other stuff, there's plenty out there on Google. IZAK 11:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NN. Ridernyc 16:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepHe has become notable not just because of his works and teachings but also his declarations, which have been considered too controversial and misoginous by many. The article should stay whether we like him or not, I think. --JewBask 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Director of Interfaith Institute at the Simon Weisenthal center should be enough notwithstanding any other comments. Also see Notability (academics) where an academic (and being the chair at a university qualifies one as an academic) who is regularly quoted is considered notable. Thus, the fact that this person is regularly quoted is a demonstration of notability in its own right as well.  Avi 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that the article fails to give convincing example of the regular quotes that you mention. I do not doubt their existence, but it'd be better to show them. Rama 19:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar links -- Avi 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And a grand total of 9 (nine!) "hits" on Google Scholar precisely prove what??? --Crusio 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that's something! 9 hits, of which one is a duplicate (Presbyterians, Jews AND Divestment), five in fact seem to fail to cite Adlerstein alltogether    .  makes a en passant mention of Alderstein. Two can't be verified. I really wish I could say I'm impressed. Rama 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This tendency of AfD nominating without doing minimal due diligence of fact checking is quite worrisome. Yes, at the moment of nomination the article could have raised doubts, but doing brief google search and then tagging with notability would have been quite enough for remedy. `'Míkka 18:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be direct, but a brief Google search gives the impression that this person is an inflammatory blogger. Which is not enough to warrant notability. So a brief Google search is not enough. Rama 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me give an small advice in "google-for-wikipedia" techniques: in the search result, when you see an url which even remotely resembles a blog or free hosting site or the likes, you just don't open the link. This is simply waste of your time: such references are invalid for wikipedia. Following this simple rule, you will be surprized how fast you will find reliable sources, if any, even if the signal-to-noise ratio is 1:100 `'Míkka 22:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, reliable sources. Such as... ? I'm really astonished how everybody here talks and talks and talks about sources, yet we don't see any. I they are really so easy to find, we should be buried under these by now. Rama 22:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree completely with Rama. I am perfectly willing to believe that this person is notable. However, notwithstanding from the (unsubstantiated) assertions on this page I have not seen any direct evidence yet. People telling us "this person is notable" is not really the kind of evidence an encyclopedia needs. --Crusio 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * His books have been published, he is a chair in a university. What more do you want? Yossiea (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, how about some verifiable independent sources?? I know too many university chairs that are not notable, or published books that had no impact whatsoever, to be impressed by those facts alone. Show me verifiable evidence of notability and I'll change my vote. Up till now, I haven't seen anything like that. --Crusio 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that you won't be satisfied with anything. The fact alone that he writes for the JO and JA should be notable enough. Add in that he was a founding trustee for the AJOP, is currently a chair at a "real" university, and he is a blogger (not just an ordinary blogger, but a Rabbi who blogs is indeed notable in many Orthodox circles.) Yossiea (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Crusio won't be satisfied with anything, more like anything won't satisfy him. "Blogger" ? excuse me ? Rama 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes being a blogger is noteworthy. But keep in mind, this is not his only claim to fame. He works for the Weisenthal Center, he has a chair at Loyola, he has published books, he writes for two mouthpiece magazines. I don't see the claim of non-notability. Yossiea (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then prove it ! Show sources ! Rama 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep subject is notable enough for Wikipedia. Yossiea (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:V emphasizes peer review. This individual has two sets of peers: academic peers and religious peers. He is entitled to an article if notable among either set, even if neither tells us much about his childhood or other details of his personal life. Reliable sources among experts in the field, not solely among mainstream media, determine notability here. Otherwise we'd have to delete virtually all articles on philosophers, scientists, and many other categories, whose mainstream media coverage is also limited. For this reason, I agree with IZAK's basic point that recognized peer-reviewed religious sources are reliable for determining an individual's notability within notable organized religions. That said, sources that are reliable in the field do need to be shown. --Shirahadasha 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Independently notable. JFW | T@lk  21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely notable, article was improved. Curious the amount of effort being made here, there are so many other less notable people in WP and deleting this person does not provide an improvement of WP. --Shuki 22:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain Until reliable sources are provided for notibility in either the academic or religious field. If such sources are provided, then Keep. As per Shirahadasha's Comment of 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC), -- Nahum 23:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I concur with arguments above finding the subject notable, after the article has been expanded. -- Dauster 01:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see that the common thread among those petitioning for the deletion of the article is a lack of sources. Here are a few interesting web search results. - an article about Rabbi Adlerstein in the "largest Muslim newspaper in California",,  - search Adlerstein on the page and see his radio program mentioned,  - he is a chairman on the Rabbinical Council of California's Beit Din (Jewish Court system),  - another LA Times article. Doing a web search for rabbi adlerstein with the criteria -blog & -"cross-currents" still yields a significant number hits. The number of times he is quoted in publications like the LA Times, the Jewish Journal, etc. signify that he is a "go to guy" for opinions and statements regarding modern Orthodox Jewery. I maintain that Rabbi Adlerstein is in fact notable and the article should be kept. Bightme 99 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * — Bightme (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A google news search for yitzchak adlerstein or yitzchok adlerstein  (note the difference in spelling of first name) - both yield more than 70 results. Bightme 99 03:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * Comment: 70 hits isn't too impressive (my name has over 400). Google hits is really just a rough test. MarsRover 04:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google & Google News are two very different animals. He had 140+ (70+ under each permutation of his name) news results. That's pretty significant. Bightme 99 05:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]


 * Keep I think at this point there are enough sources and content to justify a keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Additional sources - over 60 LA Times articles where Rabbi Adlerstein is quoted,  - more NY Times articles quoting or about Rabbi Adlerstein,  - another 11 articles from the Jerusalem Post,  - Article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette,  - 20/20 article quoting (see page 2),  - Rabbi Adlerstein's name is not mentioned, but he appears in the episode.  Although he is uncredited, he appeared in "Crown Heights" as a Hasidic rabbi interviewee. --Bightme 99 06:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * Comment I have been looking at the resources that are listed above. Unfortunately, many newspaper articles cannot be accessed (only for a fee). Those that can be accessed only mention Adlerstein in passing ("friend of" and such). There is one opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, bt from the part that is accessible it cannot be seen whether that is an invited opinion piece (which would be a sure sign of notability) or a letter to the editor (which would not be a sign of notability). I am impressed by the number of people that are expressing their convictions here that Adlerstein is notable. With so many motivated people, it should not be too diificult to find "reliable secondary sources have been put forward to establish notability or verify", as the nomination states? As far as I am concerned, just one would be enough. --Crusio 07:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some op-ed pieces:, , , and why not just check out for a whole list of op-ed pieces? --Bightme 99 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * These are by Adlerstein! We want secondary sources. Rama 07:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See 18-24 for sources about Rabbi Adlerstein and 25-28 for sources by Rabbi Adlerstein. I provided the latter sources in response to Crusio's request for opinion pieces by Rabbi Adlerstein. To make a long story short, I don't think even you, Rama, can argue at this point that Rabbi Adlerstein is not notable. More than 140 news articles come up on a google news search. Numerous articles written by him, about him, or just quoting him have been linked above. He has appeared in several films (as testified by IMDB). He's published a book by the number one Jewish Orthodox publisher, Artscroll. He serves on the editorial panel of "The Torah with Ramban's Commentary" - also by Artscroll/Mesorah Publications. I'm sorry that many of the articles are archived and require a fee to read the full text, but that is no reason to delete. The articles are there ready to be verified. He was invited to New York to film an episode of 20/20 - isn't that enough? --Bightme 99 08:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]
 * No. I am sorry, but going to television does not automatically make you encyclopedic.
 * And for the record, I am not saying that this Alderstein person is not notable. I don't know, and frankly, I couldn't care less. What I care about, on the other hand, is providing sources. And on this respect, I have found the most surprising lack of critical distance in choosing these - article have been mentioned that fail to mention Alderstein at all:
 * no mention
 * unreadable
 * ten articles: one ib by Alderstein, and the others do not mention him in their abstract, which is the only part freely available. Besides the question of whether something you can't see can be considered to be a source, if these articles were about the man, wouldn't they mention his name in the abstract ?
 * What you're doing is throw google-generated links without even reading the fringing things!
 * Like Crusio, I find the [claims that the guy is OBVIOUSLY notable]/[sources backing the point] ratio astronomical. This is really self-defeating, because if the notability of someone is clear, it's really easy to convince me of it. Rama 09:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, what are your objections really? Do you want a book to have been written about Rabbi Adlerstein? That does not happen in the world of Orthodox Judaism until the rabbis die and then only a select few get written up and then it's usually a hagiography. Here you have the case of a rabbi who is in the public spotlight. His every appearance and official act recorded on the web almost. Who has prestigious positions in the worlds of Orthodox Judaism, Jewish education, secular Jewish communal life, and in acedemia, who also writes for both the widest range of Jewish media and is quoted as a spokesperson for a moderate brand of Orthodox Judaism in the secular mass media, who has published streams of articles and a book, who has taken a public stand on controversial issues and has been reported on TV for this and for interviews, all documented, sourced, reliable, verifiable, and yet you object that the "magic bullet" (or is it the poison pen) has not been found. Would  a slash and burn book by an enemy make you happy? This rabbi, in spite of his vast public exposure really has no enemies and essentially while many people who have met him and read his articles and whatever else he puts out may disagree with him, they have not created alternate books, media and reources to smack him down and that this is evidently what you are looking for. So quit looking for a "smoking gun" this is not Watergate, you are not reporters, and Rabbi Adlerstein is definitely not Nixon. IZAK 10:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My objections are that for now, I have seen neither scholar nor religious notable sources. You make it sound that because he is an Orthodox Jew, we should accept sources like blog entries. While I am very willing to take specificities of the community into account, I will not blind myself into pretending that en passant mentions in footnotes and editorials by the man himself are sufficient.
 * And contrarliy to what you insinuate, I do not dislike Adlerstein or seek to denigrate him. I'm just waiting to see reliable sources acertaining his notability. Your repeated statements that the man is notable, given your constant failure to provide reliable sources, puzzle me. Rama 11:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there Rama: You are twisting my words into things I did not mean and certainly did not say. Point number one, nowhere in the main body of the article, which I re-wrote very carefully from its first posting, did I use or mention blogs by either Adlerstein or anyone else. Someone added that in addition to all his other positions and activities Adlerstein has time to run a very prestigious blog where he basically acts as a rabbi and gives out his well-reasoned opinions. What's wrong with that? It does not "detract" from anything as you keep implying it does. There are many (less?) prestigious bloggers that get an honorable mention on Wikipedia, indeed there is an entire Category:Bloggers (and Adlerstien is not even in it) and I wonder how many of them are sourced the way you would like Adlerstien to be?, and surely not all of them can match up to Matt Drudge. Rabbis are a lot more "boring" and speak about things like morality, God, and Torah, and the commandments. So quit saying that anyone thinks that blogs are ok as sources, because we know it ain't so. Secondly, there are several sources, citations and links in the article that present the reliance upon Adlerstein in the general media, be it The New York Times, on mainstream TV and certainly in the dozens of publications that he does not run or own but that welcome his many writings, all of which are valid sources. Finally, I do not say that you dislike Adlerstein personally, but I do say that by now you are treating this process like a fox hunt (I have already compared it to a witch-hunt and to Watergate, so I am running out of analogies of how to illustrate this to you and Corey at this time.) Sincerely, IZAK 18:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen your numerous mentions of ...-hunt, though I've not understood them. The only thing that I am looking for is reliable sources. So what are you implying with you witch-hunting comparison ? That reliable sources are not only yet to be found, but that they are a vain quest alltogether ? Rama 18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, your are twisting my words, I am not saying that looking for reliable sources is a "____-hunt" of any kind. Adlerstein's notability as a rabbi is established by all the sources cited in the article. What I am saying is that you have latched onto the article in the vain attempt to prove that this rabbi is not notable by your uncalled for and ongoing WikiLawyering, so to repeat: "...Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; Asserting that the technical interpretation of Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." Thanks again, IZAK 19:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. -- Olve 12:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep most concerns expressed are already addressed in the now updated version--יודל 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Rama, I appreciate your objective approach to this debate. However, you haven't acknowledged many of the sources cited here in this debate or responded as to why they do not demonstrate notability. Here is a summary of the most notable links and why they are important. Please let me know why these are insufficient.
 * - This is an article in InFocus "The largest Muslim newspaper in California." Let me stress that this is an article about an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in a Muslim paper. In and of itself, this is notable.
 * - Rabbi Adlerstein has his own radio program.
 * ,, , , , , , - a partial list of LA Times articles which either mention, quote or are about Rabbi Adlerstein. I only linked those articles in which his name appears in the free "abstract" portion of the article. There are many many more (as a search of the LA Times online archive will reveal).
 * , (page two),  - New York Times articles which directly quote Rabbi Adlerstein.
 * - This 20/20 article directly quotes Rabbi Adlerstein. This time I linked directly to page 2 where his name appears.
 * - note that this page is the results of a search for "Adlerstein". I know he was quoted in the article because I've seen it. Why not go directly to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazzette website and seach yourself?
 * Rabbi Adlerstein is a prolific writer in such mainstay Jewish publications as the Jewish Action and the Jewish Observer. These are like the LA Times and the NY Times of American Orthodox Jewery. They may not mean much to you, but you'd be hard-pressed to find an Orthodox Jew who hasn't read them.
 * IMDB entries confirm that Rabbi Adlerstein has appeared in and consulted for several motion pictures. Again, allow me to stress that this is notable simply because he is an Orthodox Rabbi.
 * He was a founding trustee of AJOP (Association for Jewish Outreach Programs). You may contact them via their website to confirm this.
 * I understand that to you, Rama, founding a blog is no big deal. But an Orthodox Rabbi founding a blog is a bit like an Amish leader re-inventing the generator. Orthodox Jews shy away from the internet and it's often banned in many communities.
 * All in all, although you may not be thrilled with some of the particular sources cited here, you must admit that the sum total (including all that's mentioned in the actual entry) prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Rabbi Adlerstein is well-known, both in the Orthodox world and the world at large, including the Muslim and Christian worlds. This would make anyone notable, but the fact that he's an Orthodox Rabbi on top of everything else really clinches the deal. I look forward to your comments. --Bightme 99


 * Comment; I cannot help but notice, despite the very large number of edits to the article, that there is still not a single reliable source. (And please, before venting on how the sources are "Obviously" reliable, take a few minutes to read the guideline to see what "reliable source" means).  Self-published articles, trivial en-passant mentions, one-liner quotes and blog entries do not qualify.  At this point, the only argument for notabiliy set forward sums up to "he is a Jewish Orthodox rabi so the rules applied to everyone else do not apply to him because he's obviously notable and there is no need to source that". I see a lot of "sources", none of which establish notability, even in the aggregate.  Many of the so-called sources do not even mention the rabbi!  Or are written by him.  I see a lot of special pleading, and a lot of "but he's an Orthodox Rabbi".  I see a lot of accusations of bad faith, and a lot of cries of wikilawyering. Orthodox Rabbis are not automatically notable.  Whether the topic of an article is an Orthodox Rabbi or a Buddhist dancer, the criterion are and MUST be the same.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Coren, you are being too harsh and pedantic. No-one is trying to pull a fast one here and no-one is asking for special treatment in any way. But a number of editors are bringing solid evidence of citations and sources that you are choosing to dismiss with the wave of a cyber hand. Nobody said that "Orthodox rabbis are automatically notable" so please do not insult the intelligence and skills of the Judaic editors. Over the years many a non-notable Orthodox rabbi has had his biography deleted on Wikipedia and I have done so myself. So there is no proof that Orthodox rabbis get a "free pass" on Wikipedia, on the contrary they are judged very carefully based on knowldge of who is truly notable. The way Orthodox rabbis are notable is through their publications and recorded leadership. Sometimes it's found in books, and sometimes there are articles and other writings usually within Judaism and sometimes in the world at large, to back it up. So do not claim what is not being said by anyone here please. Why not read what is stated on Reliable sources at Reliable sources that states inter alia: "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings. It can refer to 1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting). All three can affect the reliability of the work. Portions of this page use "source" exclusively in the first sense for the sake of clarity, but that does not limit the scope of this guideline...In general, the most reliable publications are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers... Material from reliable non-academic publications may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications . The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context..." and in the case of Adlerstein all these requirements are met. See also the important recent comments added above by User:Bightme99. Thanks again, IZAK 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Coren, would you please address my previous comment where I've outlined a list of sources for notability? Allow me to remind Coren, Rama & Crusio of Wikipedia's guide to notability:


 * The number of sources cited by myself and others certainly constitute significant coverage.
 * The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Jewish Action, Jewish Observer, InFocus, 20/20 all certainly contitute reliable sources
 * The LA Times, NY Times and InFocus all certainly must be considered independant of the subject.
 * What more is there to discuss? The entry clearly meets (and possibly exceeds) Wikipedia's guidelines for

notability. 'Nuff said.--Bightme 99 00:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you feel like quoting, how about "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail"? (emphasis mine) Address the subject directly. Articles, notes, papers about the subject, which in this case would be rabbi Adlerstein.  I will be happy with one such source.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Coren, may I bring your attention to source 31?--Bightme 99 04:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here, have another . Do a "find" on the page for Adlerstein. Amy Klein is a managing editor of the Jewish Journal.--Bightme 99 04:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a Google Book search? Numerous results (see  in particular) where Rabbi Adlerstein is referenced, thanked and quoted.--Bightme 99 04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Per Notability (academics):
 * Bightme99 has brought 14 citations from newspapers/magazines, which is only a partial listing. -- Avi 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently sourced, demonstrates clear notability. --Dweller 21:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable as evidenced by the abundance of sources. -- M P er el 05:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete NN. Many of his descriptions of himself are his own peacock words. He teaches a single class on Judaism at the law school as a visiting adjunct and he calls himself a Professor even w/o an advanced degres. The citations given in the entry are from his OWN blog where he gives his opinions and then other blogs and even newspapers pick it up from his self promotion. His book and articles are self-published. And like our debate over Zvi Block we can start the debate of COI of wiki editors. This entry itself is another act of his peacock self-aggrandizements. As notes above, a few citations in local papers is not enough, especially from someone whose main job is connected to the media machine of the Simon Wiesenthal center.It is unfortunate that this debate has gotten so personal on all sides.--Jayrav 14:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Jayrav - 1. You assert that the descriptions of Rabbi Adlerstein are "his own peacock words." What is this based on? I know that he didn't write them so I wonder where you got this impression?
 * 2. The newspaper quotes are from direct interviews with Rabbi Adlerstein, not merely "picked off his blog." This is verifiable - you are welcome to contact the authors of the articles.
 * 3. His book is published by Artscroll, not self-published as you mistakenly stated. Artscroll is THE primiere Orthodox Jewish publisher.
 * 4. Rabbi Adlerstein did not initiate, write or contribute to this entry or its subsequent debate. How can you assert that it is "another act of his peacock self-aggrandizements?" By making such statements you take this debate to a personal level...it is a personal attack on Rabbi Adlerstein. No other entry on this debate page personally attached the Rabbi - you are the first to do so.
 * 5. "A few citations in local papers" would not be enough. However, the NY Times & LA Times can hardly be described as "local papers." Your points are unfounded and clearly do not comply with Neutral Point of View or Civility.--Bightme 99 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Bightme- I assume that you are in good faith, but the fact that your only editing is on this article and that you are playing advocate leads to suspect COI. If Izak and Shirahadasha were going to debate this with outside input, then I could live with it. But I find the entire tone of this debate to be advocacy and without a sense that almost any Rabbi has newspaper quotes at this point. At this point in time, almost any writer, VP of a company or clergy has newspaper entries but that does not mean they are notable. Bightme, please back off for a day or two and let some of the others (I will exclude myself) evaluate the evidence. --Jayrav 16:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If his thoughts, writings, and life story have been picked up sufficiently by third-party reliable sources, it simply isn't the business of Wikipedia to inquire whether this is due to their merits or to marketing strategy. Notability is not a moral judgment. I would stick to arguments about whether there are or are not sufficient sources of sufficient reliability and scope and not let issues of motivation get involved. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:20, 18 October 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.