Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baruch Taub

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. Courcelles 00:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Taub[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A long-serving rabbi who retired to Israel, but doesn't meet notability guidelines. PK T(alk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto where he was the founding and long-serving rabbi. He is already mentioned there at Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto#History and whatever little content there is here or could be added in the future can always be included at that main Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto synagogue article. IZAK (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Who? I've never heard of this guy, but that aside, he's not-notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About what percentage of bios have you "heard of"? My personal estimates hover at less then one percent. Does that mean I am really stupid or that a lot of bios must be deleted?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A quick search of Google would have yielded the nominator plenty of secondary coverage for notability. The subject is the founding rabbi and rabbi emeritus of the largest Orthodox congregation in Canada, and the former National Director of NCSY, which is enough notability for anyone. I expanded the article with refs. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yoninah. The founding rabbi of the Beth Avraham Yoseph of Toronto is no small feat. smithers - talk 01:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reliable sources added by user Yoninah. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content that was within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the work done by Yoninah. Also, @Northamerica1000: I'd caution against the whole "xe didn't follow BEFORE" line. You have no idea what they did or didn't do. Plenty of people don't come up with sources when they do Google searches because they don't know to do an archives search. People have a variety of interpretations of what falls under our RS guidelines. I, for one, don't always mention that I did a source ahead of time, as it's rather implied. Maybe he did follow BEFORE, maybe he didn't, but it's best to take up that issue on the nominator's talk page, politely, rather than accuse them here. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The wording of the nomination is inspecific, stating that the topic doesn't meet notability guidelines without stating which one(s). Referring to entire pages of guidelines fails to qualify specific reasons for notability or lack thereof, and equates to referring to an entire list of multiple, specific rationales as a singular, generic rationale for article deletion. This equates to stating that an article should be deleted because of any reason on a guideline page, without actually stating any of the criterion on the guideline page to qualify the statement, which is illogical. The link provided in the nominator's message linked to the guidelines for notability of people, but again, no specific rationale is provided. If it's the basic criterion, which parts? All of them? Some of them? None are specifically stated. The number of readily and easily available sources qualifies my statement above about the likelihood of the article being nominated without following proper procedures for source searching before doing so. This article shouldn't have been nominated to be removed from Wikipedia in the first place due to the topic's notability per the availability of reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.