Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Shaloam David


 * 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. Consensus to keep based on satisfaction of the General notability guideline. Philg88 ♦talk 16:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Salem Shaloam David

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I understand that this person may have religious significance - but I fail to see any general notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This subject has an entry in a printed encyclopedia that is linked in the article and itself provides the basis for notability. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are all entries in the Jewish Encyclopedia automatically sufficiently notable? I don't see any indication that we have a standing consensus that is the case, and I would say that this person pushes the envelope on the matter.  --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The notability standards for the Jewish Encyclopedia are way higher than WP's-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and agree with User that because this article is almost entirely reprinted from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia hence it is WP:V based on a WP:RS, and is now in the public domain that it is therefore beneficial to WP as an encyclopedic article. Also, in years gone by, User  had once noted  in Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral : no opinion for now, but I disagree with the arguments advanced so far for keeping the article; though the Jewish Encyclopedia was sometimes more selective than Wikipedia, but often less so. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to Weak keep: The subject seems to meet the letter of GNG. This article and this book, both by the same author, one Maisie Meyer, seem to be reliable sources with significant coverage, especially when taken with the Jewish Encyclopedia article and the Jewish Chronicle article the latter is based on. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 02:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone finds another source to support the entry, else it fails WP:GNG. Being mentioned in a specialist encyclopedia is not a sufficient reason to include it in a different one. Notability in this encyclopedia requires at least two reliable sources, unless it is covered under a subject specific guideline. This article only has one citation and I am not aware of any other criteria that would make this person inherently notable. Fuebaey (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not require "at least two reliable sources" (italics in original). Also, see above comment from User:הסרפד wherein he links to two more sources. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It states multiple sources are generally expected and the terms on sources are in plural form. I'm not quite sure how my interpretation is entirely incorrect, but good on הסרפד for finding other references irregardless. Fuebaey (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not say your interpretation was incorrect, I said your statement of fact -- that GNG requires two sources -- was incorrect. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient reliable sources for WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2014 (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.