Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosef Babad (HTC)


 * 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 I'm not aware of any policy or guidelines that says notability for Jewish academinics is different to the general standard but there is undoubtedly some coverage out there. The question really is whether there is enough and I see two obituaries in local papers and an op-ed. Much of the keep arguing is not based on policy grounded reasons so the overal outcome should be delete. However, given the possibility of systemic bias I'm going to exercise discretion and incubate this in the hope that a bit more work with make the passing of the N hurdle a little more obvious Its now at Article_Incubator/Yosef_Babad_(Hebrew_Theological_College) Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yosef Babad (HTC)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No assertion of notability Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This man was dean of students at a college for over 30 years. He guided the institution during that time, and had hundreds if not thousands of students. Isn't that notable in itself? Isn't it important for his students to understand his backround so that they can follow in his footsteps?? What is your definition of notable? wizir01 &#9742; 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Rabbi Chaim Twerski, Dr. Babad wrote plenty of articles, and a book as well. Please give us time to collect this information and then you will see for yourself his noteworthiness. wizir01 &#9742; 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Passes none of the criteria for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Userfy or Incubate. An editor has asked for more time. Being dean of students at any university is insufficient to have a Wikipedia article, but perhaps Dr Babad has other claims of notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per article creator. Dean of college is notable. We have to work on the sources, few of which can be found by Google searches. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What if I told you deans aren't automatically notable? Abductive  (reasoning) 07:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * i would then probably respond that you're right, but a dean of thousands of students is automatically notable.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He isn't a dean of thousands of students, and where is any of this written in policy? Abductive  (reasoning) 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He isn't because he's dead. But before he died, thousands of students were under his deanship (albeit not at the same time) because he was a Dean of Students for 40 years. Although this is not a per se claim to notability, being in the position that he was made him an important and notable part of the Chicago Jewish community (one of the largest Jewish communities in the world) This is supported by this source. I have access to the entire article and have included some content to article that can not be viewed by the free version. All this is notwithstanding his other claims to notability. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep – Dean of Studies of a major university is inherently notable under academics. JAAG  Talk 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, WP:PROF #6 is only for heads of universities; Dean of Studies is a lower-level position. It seems reasonably likely that a dean of studies would be notable, but we'll have to find some other way of demonstrating this than ex officio. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a few additional references to the article. Maybe, this will help.   JAAG  Talk 17:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or incubate. I haven't been able to find anything significant about this man, as opposed to his ancestor.  Dean of students is not the same as dean of an institution; it's often a nonacademic functionary position. The article states that he was "graduate school dean," but doesn't explain the context.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 18:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I tried and failed to find sources on him — the article mentions two Chicago-area newspaper obituaries but I couldn't find them (so couldn't tell if they were the kind of obituary the family pays to publish or the kind that major newspapers write about famous people). The institution for which he was dean of students is tiny (around 300 students combined from high school and college levels) so his position there may be more analogous to a high school assistant principal than to a major academic position of the type that would meet WP:PROF #6. Regardless of whether he passes WP:PROF, he seems to fail WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the Chicago Sun-Times obituary. It was written by a columnist for the paper, not family-paid. I have access to the entire article and can email it to you if you wish.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Given that he was a professor  a major theological school, he may have been a notable scholar;  & I make that presumption on the lack of other evidence.    DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's not a major theological school -- it's tiny, with almost half the students at high-school level. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * and the other half is not. Most theological schools are small in size.   DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And consequently less notability to rub off on the subject. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * half the students at high-school level. Not true. It's a college, not a highschool.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, he's a functionary with no particular claim of notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He's a scholar, author, professor, rabbi, communal leader, activist, and functionary. The particular claims to notability are coverage in reliable sources. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article are an obituary, a extremely short mention in a book, and an editorial. Now, DGG might say that an obit in the NYT is prima facie evidence of notability, but I ask, "why wasn't his death noticed in a non-Chicago newspaper?"  Abductive  (reasoning) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Being profiled in an op-ed versus a regular article is irrelevant for notability purposes. So his death was noticed in at least two large newspapers, one in Chicago and one in Israel. These two by their very selves sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements. This bio has to be viewed in its correct context. Those notable within the Orthodox Jewish community receive most of their coverage in Orthodox Jewish publications, most of which are unavailable on-line. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I disagree that he was profiled in the editorial, I disagree that his death was noticed in two large newspapers, I disagree that that would satisfy the notability requirement, I disagree that the Orthodox Jewish community are mostly offline, and I disagree that we have to accept articles on people who do not achieve notability because they are largely offline. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, but I'm not really sure who exactly you're disagreeing with when you say that you "disagree that we have to accept articles on people who do not achieve notability because they are largely offline." Nobody at this afd claimed to the contrary. You may have misunderstood my previous statement or you may be unfamiliar with WP-policy that allows for off-line sources.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But we have no evidence of offline sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Off-line sources are inherently unsupported by evidence. That's where WP:AGF comes in.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My viewpoint is that this article was created as a memorial, and the man didn't do anything encyclopedic.He did his duty at his institution, and that's it. Most people have jobs, and in the US and Britain at least, get some mention in newspapers if they live long enough. Pick a first name and last name at random, and I'll bet you hit on a percentage that would bring the number of Wikipedia articles to around 100,000,000. For example, I just made up the string "Ralph Stockton", which has no hits on Wikipedia. But, check out . Abductive  (reasoning) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably imagining him as the Dean of Students of the college that you attended, who was unnotable person. Just like the dean of students at my college. However, as indicated by the coverage in sources, he was more then that. He was a notable person in the Jewish community, for a variety of reasons, one of which was his longetivity at an important religious institution. His position as dean of students was not like a regular dean of students, who are just doing their 9-5 job, but do not create a real connection to any society. A position like Dean of Students in the Orthodox Jewish community means that this person is an important leader of the Orthodox Jewish community. You obviously don't have to accept my anthropological discourse. I'm only to trying to explain how this person came to be seen as notable despite spending most of his career at a position that usually does not establish notability.
 * As for your point regarding random person's name, you're incorrect. The name that you chose as an example is a common generic name whose ghits include hundreds of different people. A better example may be a name such as Ralph Frockton, who gets far less ghits. . Yosef Babad is very uncommon Jewish name. Indeed, all the ghtis either refer to him or ancestor. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point there was that a Ralph Stockton has an obituary in a major daily. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claim of Deans of Students in the Orthodox Jewish community being somehow more notable is special pleading. What about a Black Dean of Students at a HBCU? Sure, that means something in the local community, but if all he or she did was be a dean of students, what is the encyclopedic value? Abductive  (reasoning) 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not a special pleading. He's notable because he has received substantial coverage. My "claims" are only to facilitate your understanding on how its possible that he was considered notable despite having - as seen from the normal Western cultural prism - a position that is not usually associated with notability. As to your comparison to a Black Dean of Students at a HBCU, you can't really compare a community based on race to a community based on religion. There's a far greater sense of community in the latter then the former. That aside, if there's a Black Dean of Students that is notable, all the power to his Wikipedia article.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * His coverage is not substantial. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Actually I just found another source, an article in the Chicago Tribune. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

wizir01 Concerning the school:  It is the school that sponsored major rabbinical figures like Joseph Soloveitchik and Dovid Lifshitz to come to America. Some of the greatest leaders in the Jewish world went to the school; see the article on Hebrew Theological College for more info. It may be relatively small, but its impact is high in the Orthodox Jewish world. (talk) 8 January 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough here to pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seem to be several sources that point out his notability in the community of American Orthodox Jewry.  Just because the community of interest isn't all that wide, doesn't mean we should automatically exclude it.  Ask yourself if the Project is weaker or richer because of this addition.  I say it is richer, and the article should be given some breathing room, allowing the editors time to find more sources.  Stellarkid (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jaag and others, who voted to keep.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep wizir01 I added some more information about his scholarly work.  I haven't yet had a chance to go to the library and get the names and dates.  I really don't understand why this article was marked for deletion so quickly after I created it; it takes time to gather the information about noteworthy figures.  I consider this a collaborative endeavor.  I am rather new to Wikipedia, and it seems to be a very unfriendly place if you don't have all your facts online immediately.  What is motivating you to delete stuff like this so quickly?  —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment, I'm having no difficulty finding sources on roughly similar cases, such as or . This is evidence that Orthodox Jewish figures are indexed by Google, and that Yosef Babad is not notable.  Abductive  (reasoning) 05:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, he's WP:NOTABLE enough. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about what constitutes notability for a Judaic scholar. 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. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2010 (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.