Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yosef Yitzchak Jacobson (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 no consensus. For sure, there's a certain amount of sock/coi/spa games going on here, but what makes this hard to close is that for the most part, the arguments on both sides steer clear of good policy-based arguments. Icewhiz provided a number of plausible-looking sources, but I don't see anybody evaluating them in detail.

StonyBrook, while ostensibly arguing to keep, says, mainstream coverage is noticeably lacking, which sure sounds like an argument for deletion.

Xxanthippe argues, Of only local cultural interest, but it's unclear how much weight to give that. WP:AUD is part of WP:NCORP, but it's not a part of WP:NBIO.

Ultimately, I don't see any clear consensus on either side. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Yosef Yitzchak Jacobson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Was recreated after a May 2018 AfD resulted in redirect. The redirect was put back in place, as per the consensus of that discussion. The redirect was removed, with the rationale that the AfD was "Old discussion. see the dates." However, in the little over a year since the last discussion, nothing has changed. Current sourcing is still problematic, blogs, non-independent sourcing, and a student newspaper.  Onel 5969  TT me 09:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 09:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This small biographical article has 10 sources, many of them independent. In this connection I want to stress that the fact that some of the sources are Chabad affiliated, and Jacobson is a Chabad rabbi, does not mean that the sources are not independent. Just like a catholic publication does not loose its independence just because the subject of an article is a priest, as long as that priest is not directly related to the publication. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I strongly question the subject's notability. The only book of his listed on the world's largest bookstore is "A Tale of Two Souls," and that was published in 2000 with zero reviews in almost 20 years. The author of this article Special:Contributions/Starthought created it with his or her very first edit and has only ever edited this page specifically, so there is a strong potential WP:COI, but I'm not going to make that call. PhobosIkaros   ✉  15:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if that editor has a connection to the rabbi, and I won't rule that out at all, that does not in any way detract from the notability of this rabbi (obviously doesn't add to it either). Debresser (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The "A Talk of Two Souls" om Amazon that I think you are referring to is put up by a book store as a buy used item for a exceptionally high price of $199. Which explains why it is not being purchased from there, since it is actually available for free and has been distributed first by tape, then by CD/DVD and now online. See here:.
 * It has also been distributed as class sources for teachers to teach the content See: ,,.
 * Regarding your point of COI, it is a fair point to bring up. I do not have a direct COI, however I am a avid listener of his online content and decided to undertake creating the WikiPage about him. I am unsure how to prove this, but I am open to suggestions. Having said that, in the current version of the page, I kept it very basic to ensure there are only facts that have sources. I invite others to edit the page with new sources they found (as allowed by the rules of Nominated for deletion pages), to remove any possible bias of this page having a single author. Starthought (talk) 3:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Der Rabbi und redaktor ist noutabal. For starters, one needs to recognize that our subject has a few different name forms, and that much of his coverage is in Yiddish whose online availability it spotty. BEFOREing for our subject, I found - this in Hebrew, and then figured out that in English he mostly goes by YY Jacobson - which led to, , , , . More Hebrew (across denominations I will note - this is not Chabad press) - , , - breadth of geographical coverage that has convinced me he's probably notable as a speaker (including against sexual abuse) and publisher. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The claim of notability is backed by reliable and verifiable sources already in the article and (as noted above) by additional references available to be added. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The English language coverage is spotty and does not demonstrate notability in itself (although the extreme praise with which the subject is regarded in local Jewish presses suggests that other coverage may exist). However, the Hebrew language coverage is more significant, plus Icewhiz's comments re the likelihood of Yiddish-language coverage. Although uh Icewhiz, was that supposed to be Yiddish in your keep statement there? You may need some practice. signed,Rosguill talk 17:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BASIC notability has been established. As noted above, there is an undercurrent of various Jewish media to draw upon, although mainstream coverage is noticeably lacking. Significantly, much of the Jewish coverage isn't Chabad, which indicates that the subject has crossed over into the mainstream through his inspirational speaking, which is mostly what he is known for. Agree with Debresser that possible COI editing should not prejudice the subject itself being notable. StonyBrook (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note I added a mention regarding Jacobson's lectures about Haredi sexual abuse, with a Hebrew source provided by Icewhiz; a subject which most WP:MILL rabbis will never air in public. StonyBrook (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just publishing stuff does not confer notability. It is having the stuff noted by independent others that does. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC).
 * That source isn't primary, it's some kind of Haredi media outlet that both reported on the lecture and fully translated/transcribed it. StonyBrook (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * To respond to your concern about having stuff noted by independent others, I spent some time Googling and was able to find a lot of references to him, including many independent statements, I didn't include most, since I felt it would be counter productive, rather I included several types of links as samples to show that there is a broad set of independently sourced references. Examples include events where 200k people tuned in live, A site with notable thought leaders in New York, which includes him in a group of other Rabbi's that are on Wikipedia as Notable personages , Author with articles on IsraelNationalNews a major Israeli news outlet , There are lots of examples of events that are hosted all over the world that have him as the main speaker, some examples: ,, , , , , , , , He is also listed as an Author on the Algemeiner, which is a notable Yiddish news outlet , he has had articles posted on the OK website, which is a known kosher certification agency , His Articles have also been printed in multiple print magazines, I was able to find some that had an online version as well , Jewish Press Page 12 , Cleveland Jewish News , Baltimore Jewish Life , South African Jewish Report , 5Towns Publication . He has been invited to speak on the Israeli TV Station Hidabruth . He has been invited to speak at multiple radio shows including , Radio Public , Nachum Segal Network . He is listen on the JewishPress as part of the Who's who in the Jewish world along Ariel Sharon, Rabbi Manis Friedman, Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski . He is a featured speaker of JCW . Some news articles that mention him ,  Starthought (talk) 5:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC). — Starthought (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. No improvement since last AfD. Inadequate sources, not in-depth. Of only local cultural interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Delete. Refs are inconclusive (many blogs, YouTubes, etc.), there is no conclusive claim of notibility, nor is this person notable per se. I understand that the SPA that resurrected this article after its deletion/merge about a year ago says that there are lots more sources, but a quick perusal of some (though not all) listed above again shows lots of web pages, newsletters, "stump the Rabbi" on blogtalkradio.com, etc. These go much more to existence than notability. Parenthetically, I will say that this case seems to be following a standard tactic characteristic of rabbinical BLPs (e.g. Tzvi Berkowitz, Avraham Friedman) that have insufficient referential support for notability: their AfDs are flooded with "keeps" that patronizingly explain why conventional rules don't apply to rabbinical bios, resulting in an overwhelming consensus to keep the article. That will likely be the result here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you ever nominate Avraham Friedman fro deletion, let me know, and I will lend you my delete vote. But surely you can't compare these two rabbis, both in the reach of their notability as well as in the number of sources in the article (and even more available as mentioned above by several editors).
 * I recommend you strike you parenthetical comment, which looks a bit like well poisoning to me. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do you really not see the pattern? A good example is StonyBrook's comment above, which says: "mainstream coverage is noticeably lacking", but then claims in the very next sentence that the "the subject has crossed over into the mainstream". How are we to interpret such a contradiction, which essentially boils-down to he's a mainstream figure, there just isn't any mainstream coverage? StonyBrook, who has edited many rabbinical bios, explains to us that it is because "much of the Jewish coverage isn't Chabad"...of course! This is part of a familiar pattern of special pleading on this class of articles. Any denomination could invoke this same type of pleading for their clergy because all denominations have their own literature, Catholics, 7th Day Adventists, LDS, and on down the line. But, we would not usually accept a notability argument for bios having most of their coverage concentrated in these outside-of-mainstream sources. Regarding your "surely you can't compare these two rabbis" comment, I would maintain that Jacobson is not notable per se. The closest claim to notability in the lede is that he is "the dean and Rosh Yeshiva of TheYeshiva.net". But this seems to be a website!! As far as Avraham Friedman, please don't wait for me. Go ahead and take it to AfD. That one is a closed chapter for me. In my estimate, you probably have enough consensus for "keep" anyway, so most of what I've said is likely irrelevant. Signing off, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My fault for not making myself clear. I meant to say no significant mainstream news coverage exists, although there is much mainstream (meaning non-Chabad) Jewish coverage, and that to me it is telling; he is a Chabad rabbi and speaker who appeals to general Orthodox audiences, which is unusual. I am for any denomination pleading for their clergy, because only they would know the relative weight their clergy carry within their own communities. They should be allowed to police themselves in this regard. I think it is interesting for an outsider to learn who are the main players in X faith system, such as towering rabbinical figure Joseph B. Soloveitchik in Judaism, who definitely belongs in an encyclopedia even though he doesn't seem to have been discussed much in The New York Times. StonyBrook (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pardon, but this response very much illustrates what I'm talking about: an "insider" explaining esoteric reasons why WP conventions (like requiring mainstream sources) do not apply, essentially claiming special expertise to vouch for a notability status that "outsiders" are incapable of understanding. Ironically, this kind of provincialism is not seen in far more complex cases where generalist editors judge notability simply by the available claims and sources. Agricola44 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You mention newsletters and blogs, but there are a significant amount of news outlets listen and other bodies that cannot be classified as blogs and news papers in the previous example. Including Israel National News, which is a major Israeli news agency [], Jewish News of northern California [], The Algemeiner which is a known Yiddish newspaper [], The OK, which is a major kosher certification agency [], The Jerusalem Post, which is another major Israeli News Agency []. These are many more sources that could be referenced, some already included earlier.
 * Based on WP:SIGCOV, there seems to be "Significant coverage", in that there are many sources that have significantly more than a trivial mention.
 * For the listed news agencies, I included some wikipedia links as references, there are many reliable sources, as per WP:SIGCOV Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.
 * Besides the Algemeiner, where the subject was the editor-in-chief, the subject does not have an affiliation with those news agencies or most other sources quoted, thus qualifying under the "Independent of the subject" rule.
 * Reference is made to rabbinical BLPs and a flood of "keeps" that patronizingly explain why conventional rules don't apply to rabbinical bios".
 * I do not see that to be the case here. The subject is assumed to be notable based on WP:SIGCOV and WP:BASIC.
 * It can also be argued that the subject qualifies under the academics classification, which states that "Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study". Many of the included references show that the subjects content is frequently used by others in the smae field as reference and source material. It also states that Starthought (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. These vast walls of text are becoming less and less plausible. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like I just don't see the necessary coverage in RS. Lots of non-RS, articles by the subject himself, etc are not enough. --Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:Icewhiz makes the case here. Haukur (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - would just like to point out that WP:MUSTBESOURCES isn't really a valid argument.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 11:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.