Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tov Rose (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 delete and protect. The issue here is the subject's lack of demonstrated notability consistent with Wikipedia policies, not the format of the article or the religious beliefs the subject. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tov Rose
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Entirely unsourced BLP, individual does not appear to meet WP:N--absolutely no cites from RSS's, individual is an 'author' but only of self-published works, COI problems--page clearly created by individual himself for purposes of self-promotion Zad68 (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: This article was previously speedy deleted at least twice:  Articles for deletion/Tov Rose Zad68 (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing I can find suggests he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Sprinkle with SALT Protect from recreation if deleted, too. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I blasted away the external links section. It contained an Amazon link to all his books, Facebook, Borders, Barnes & Noble's links, etc.  But, a link may contain usefully information.  Here is the version that contains the external links. Bgwhite (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kablammo (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete All his books are self-published. The Paranormal God and The Paranormal Seems are 99 cents on Amazon and also available on Lulu.  Can only find a couple places to buy the other two books.  No reliable sources to be found.  Salting is needed. Bgwhite (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR; all books self-published and no references cited. ukexpat (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ukexpat would you agree with recommending salting as well? Zad68 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * NOTE: This article is based on the format for another (other similar authors in the genre), See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Stern. As you will notice, it is the only other author referenced on the site that comes close to the subject matter.
 * Question: Why is that an anonymous person, or someone with an obvious agenda seems to be the one(s) nominating articles about Jewish-Christians for deletion? This seems to be a consistent problem for Wikipedia. It is a form of religious persecution that needs to be addressed. Rather than deleting this article, why don't we act in good faith and improve it to make sure it is up to standards? -toviaheli 13:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Acting in good faith also requires not accusing other editors of conducting religious pogroms. If you seriously believe that Zad68 is masterminding a campaign of religious persecution, then raise the issue at ANI and provide evidence, rather than making snide comments here. Many people propose multiple AfDs in related subject areas, since browsing by topics or user contributions often brings up similar articles, many of which (like this one) do not meet our inclusion criteria. Your comments verge on a personal attack, and I strongly suggest you strike them and apologise. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 22:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Toviaheli, first, I do not appreciate your ostensibly general but obviously pointed musings that there's "religious persecution" happening. This smacks of a personal attack; comment on the article content, not on the editor.
 * For the article: The article makes a primary claim to notability for Tov Rose as an author, and so the article must provide support that the author meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines for an author.  However, the article as it currently stands fails to provide this support.
 * The article makes a secondary claim to notability for Tov Rose as a theologian. This is a claim of academic notability and so must rise to the level of Notability (academics).  The article provides no support that Tov Rose meets any of the criteria for Notability (academics):  It does not appear that Tov Rose has even completed a Masters degree, much less a Ph.D. or Th.D., or that Tov Rose has won any academic awards or held a named professor chair.
 * So Toviaheli, you must either edit the article and provide support from reliable secondary sources that Tov Rose does meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, or the article will need to be deleted, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, for the third time.
 * Also, Toviaheli: It appears that you are probably Tov Rose, and as such you would have a serious conflict of interest in editing this article.  Toviaheli, are you Tov Rose?  Thank you in advance for your direct answer.  Zad68 (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Zad68, 1) "Sprinkle with Salt" is a term the Orthodox Jewish community uses when attacking Jewish Believers in Jesus. This sets a tone. The tone is obviously that of religious persecution. There is no other way to perceive it. 2) The links showing the author's work have been removed by another editor who also noted that "But, a link may contain usefully information." In fact, there is useful information that supports the Author's Notability. And of course, those links were deleted. This makes for a nice "Catch 22", which is all but consistent with what typically happens on Wikipedia. So, again I am calling for a change in how editors typically deal with the issue of articles about Jewish believers in Jesus. This one IS being watched by several watchdogs...Zad68, et al? toviaheli (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Toviaheli, you misunderstood Yunshui's suggestion "Sprinkle with SALT". This is a Wikipedia administrative term, not a religious persecution term.  Read WP:SALT:  "Administrators can prevent the creation of a page through the protection interface. This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor."  An article title that is protected from being recreated by this Wikipedia administrative action is termed "salted."  If this AfD to delete Tov Rose results in the article being deleted, for the third time, it would be an appropriate action for Wikipedia administrators to prevent the re-creation of the article.  I am sure no religious offense was intended by Yunshui's use of this standard Wikipedia administrative term.
 * Toviaheli, please note that the AfD makes absolutely no suggestion that this article be deleted because it is about a "Jewish believer in Jesus." So please do not take to suspicion or offense for reasons that are not actually given.  The links that were deleted were deleted properly, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, because they were self-promotion and not reliable secondary sources.  The AfD mainly calls into question whether Tov Rose rises to Wikipedia's notability requirements, and secondarily raises issues of self-promotion and conflict of interest.
 * Toviaheli, so I notice you did not answer my direct question to you, I will make it easier for you to notice:  It appears that you are probably Tov Rose, and as such you would have a serious conflict of interest in editing this article.  Toviaheli, are you Tov Rose?  Thank you in advance for your direct answer.  Zad68 (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Zad68, Perhaps I misunderstood the term. Moving on: One of the previous deletions was not for a correct reason. It states that the information was pulled from another site, when in face that other site pulled the information from Wikipedia. How do I know? I created the article and complained to the other site and demanded removal, which they ignored. Second, the current note on THIS article states that there are no verifiable references, when those references were removed. This is a classic Catch 22. To respond to another criticism about the availability of the Author's books, they are available on the Barns & Noble website and I personally purchased a copy at my local Barns & Noble Bookstore, which is why I came here to try and put up the article again--based on the format of the David H. Stern article, which has obviously been accepted as valid by the community. I am baffled as to how this article is treated, while that one is accepted. Perhaps you can explain since you have worked on that article as well? toviaheli (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Toviaheli, I am glad we could clear up that misunderstanding. Regarding the references for the article, are you talking about the "Sources" that used to be here under External Links?  If so, then you seriously misunderstand how Wikipedia requires you provide references your article, what the standards are for those references--Reliable secondary sources--and the care you must take when using primary sources.  That list of 30 or so links were mostly links to book sales sites, promotional copy and PR, and really none of it would be allowed by Wikipedia policy to be used to establish notability.  Also, a list of links to sales and promotional sites in no way satisfies Wikipedia requirements for providing attributions for a biography.  So, you are back to what we have been trying to tell you repeatedly:  The article needs reliable secondary sources, correctly attributed and linked to article content, to establish notability of the subject and verifiability of the content. Zad68 (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to make it absolutely clear that I intended no offense with my comment above (which I've now struck and reworded); I had no idea that it was used as a disparaging term in that fashion. My apologies for any offense caused. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 15:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Back to the discussion at hand: availability of the authors' books is not an indication of notability. In the modern world, literally anyone with internet access can publish a book and make it available through the book trade. Not all that do are actually notable. What counts is coverage in reliable, independent sources - Tov Rose does not appear to have received enough such coverage to pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I'd also point you to the futility of the other stuff exists argument - this discussion is about Rose, not Stern. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 15:21, 28 February 2012 (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.