Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Glasman


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yaakov Glasman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

there does not seem to be any formal position of leadership, except the rabbinical council of one australian state. the article is furthermore advocacy,with puffery and assumptions: a consistent stand;    :forceful in his view... such language is always suspect--it is indicative of either unimaginative PR agent, or unwitting  copying of their style. It contains local trivial about the football club he supports, It also brings in his very notable cousins and uncles, but I know that within at least some portions of the Jewish community, family does count for notability.  DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * He held the position of the Australian rabbinic association. He has been a player in the Royal Commission about abuse, having taken the stand to question the rabbi's roles in the scandal. He has taken a stand against homophobia in the Orthodox community. This is not a puff piece (and I have no direct connection to the subject), it is an article about one of the most high profile rabbis in Australia Playlet (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how being "elected to be the president of the new Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand" is not a formal position of leadership. I also do not see puffery - it is a clear reflection of what this person said, and how he said it, as reported in media coverage of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and was in clear contrast to many other rabbis who gave evidence. I note that WP:RELPEOPLE says "In particular, an individual will often meet notability guidelines if they #2 "Played an important role in a significant religious event which itself received considerable coverage in sources." The Royal Commission was not a religious event, but it was an investigation into child abuse in religious organisations, in which the subject of this article played an important role - and a quite different role from some other rabbis. (I have no connection to the subject at all, but was aware of the media coverage of the royal commission.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be an important Jewish figure in terms of the Royal Commission, elected to be president as noted above.Berek (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to me to be more than sufficient IRS to support WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Sufficient also to add further content to article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. In my opinion Jewish newspapers are not sufficiently independent sources in these circumstances.  I am surprised to see no notability guidelines for religious figures. He did not give evidence at the royal commission into child sexual abuse - he was excused.  He may have made comments to the media, but he was not a major player.  Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where holding a formal position of leadership makes a person notable.  A quick google search does not reveal any coverage outside that already cited in the article.  He may be well known within the Jewish community, but he is not well known outside the Jewish community. I don't see the article as being a puff piece. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 20:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * He did give evidence at the Royal Commission even though he was excused Playlet (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are notability guidelines for religious figures, which I linked to above. Glasman did give evidence at the Royal Commission, as reported in the sources. Also, SBS, ABC Radio National and the Herald Sun are not Jewish media. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you for your correction and for pointing me to WP:RELPEOPLE.  I withdraw my mention about evidence at the royal commission.  I maintain that there is no significant coverage of Glasman in in independent reliable sources; in the sources mentioned he is called on for comment only, or the evidence he gave at the royal commission is covered.  In relation to WP:RELPEOPLE, the royal commission was not a religious event and it was also not exclusively an enquiry into religious institutions, among other institutions, Surf lifesaving Australia, the Australian Defence Force and Scouts were in the crosshairs; the major media coverage related to the Catholic and Anglican churches.  I think people like Glasman deserve a page, but sadly I don't see that meets the notability criteria. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 21:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I also note that WP:RELPEOPLE is not a policy or guideline, but appears in an essay on WikiProject Religion. Regardless of what either of us think it is not binding.  8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per nominator. I am also disturbed by the PR-type language here and the trivial details. The main argument for notability boils down to his outspokenness on various issues, but the article has a SYNTH feel to it, like the page creator was digging up every mention in a newspaper to build an article. Aside from his views, he doesn't stand out as notable. Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I think. I was going to say "delete" until I read the claim "inaugural president of the new Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand". If that organisation is really the peak body of Rabbis in two countries then 1) it is worthy of an article and 2) so are its presidents (but not most other members). The article still needs a lot of work. --Scott Davis Talk 10:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep – Definitely passes GNG, without a doubt. I don't see any specific guidelines that he fits into but regardless, he is notable. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  14:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject person is the head of the Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand (see here), which should be trivially considered a "notable organization." Makes the cut. -The Gnome (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I agree with the nominator that the text currently contains a lot of fat, e.g. "He has been very outspoken about his desire to accept LGBT Jews into the Orthodox community," which is an arbitrary and significant amplification of what the cited source states. -The Gnome (talk)


 * 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.