Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sholem Gutnick


 * 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 merge to Melbourne Beth Din. The only particularly strong keep argument is from and there is a rough consensus to delete. However, Melbourne Beth Din is a valid redirect target (per WP:ATD-R) and since the subject is (long?) dead there are no BLP concerns from keeping the article history intact.  A  Train talk 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sholem Gutnick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sources in article are passing mentions. BEFORE doesn't bring much better (a few more passing mentions, in particular regarding his brother/sons). Heading a beth-din by self-appointment does not seem sufficient for WP:JUDGE. Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep His role in his community for 40 years and certainly his role as a judge for 20 years are strong claims of notability. The source from ABC (Australian TV channel) is entirely about him and his role at the bet din. In the absence of a hierarchical structure in Judaism, most judges will be self appointed and what's relevant here is not that he appointed himself but that he was accepted by the community at large for two decades combined with the issues of how he conducted himself, all of which were covered in depth by a reliable and verifiable source. Other, similarly strong sources are also available to be added, and I'm sure that if I knew Australia better that there would be further references available. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The ABC source is a radio show from 2002 upon the dissolution of the beit din. Most beit din heads are actually not self appointed - this only happens in small or new communities. Current sources do not support GNG for this individual.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll call bullshit here. The ABC source is the transcript of a radio show (I'm unsure how bolding impacts the quality of the source) that covers him in-depth in the context of his beit din. How it was formed is irrelevant and I'm not sure why you're passing the source of as non-print justifies blowing off the source. Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The other 2 sources in the article are crap (Not only is their RSness questionable - they barely mention the guy). The ABC radio interview/roundtable is primarily about the dissolution of the beit din and prospect forward - and not about Gutnick. It is possibly usable (not sure if ABC stands behind what interviewees say - you may have to attribute) - but claiming SIGCOV off of one radio show (that is primarily about a different subject, some coverage of him)? That is a stretch.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google Books results also show evidence of notability. Υπογράφω (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * All 7 of them are passing mentions or directory entries - often in the context of other Gutnicks (His son, father,or brothers).Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- sourcing is too weak to establish notability as per Icewhiz--Rusf10 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- He is a notable person in the community, especially since his removal was not retirement but due to allegations of corruption and extortion from a print article that I could not find online. I am looking for it. An alternative because the online sources are a bit thin would be delete and I could move the information into a new article about the Melbourne Beth Din.--smellytap 22:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You do have BLPCRIME (or is he dead? You do not have a date of death issues) for the bio. I do agree that the dissolution of the beth din in 2002 would be relevant information on an article on the beth din.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a nn individual; does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG, for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A "notable person in the community" means just that: the subject is only of local interest and is not suitable for inclusion. Allegations of nepotism and running a one-man show are exactly the things we should not be putting in an article on a recently deceased person. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- On reflection there is not much about this individual, and most of the publicly relevant information can be inserted into other pages. to answer the other question, he is dead. smellytap 16:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough sources that discuss this indivdual in detail. Of course after seeing som many articles sourced only to the non-reliable IMDb, I begin to wonder if using reliable sources is still a thing on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Melbourne Beth Din per WP:BIO1E. Really only notable for the allegations surrounding his role at the Beth Din, and two reliable sources (an Age article and ABC radio story) does not exactly meet the bar of significant coverage. The article is nothing more than a stub anyway. Kb.au (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2018 (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.