Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph J Sherman

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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph J Sherman

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

This article does not state why this person is notable. It also needs too much work to leave as a live article, IMO. Kbabej (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. War wizard90 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Assuming Sherman is notable, he would be notable for the same reason anyone is - that he has been noticed by reliable sources. There is no need for the article to say "he is notable because X". On the second point, the article does indeed need work, but AfD is not for cleanup. Not the relevant question: is Sherman notable? Sources 2, 10, & 14 are reliable and in depth coverage. (I am making a small assumption that the Hebrew source, #10, is truly Sherman as I can't read Hebrew.) That would make Sherman notable under the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that source 10 is about Sherman. No opinion about the article yet; the coverage is in-depth, but what about WP:BLP1E? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is intended for people caught up in a news story. Most people are known for "one thing", so its not meant to disqualify people known for one thing, but rather protect private individuals who where merely in the news and didn't have biographical information written about them. (I.E. people where their entire biography would focus on a single news story, not properly discuss all aspects of their life.) It's hard to see "converting to Judaism" as qualifying as an event in that regard, and the sources do contain biographical information here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per ThaddeusB. (ThaddeusB: I am aware of the definition of BLP1E, but I had not noticed the degree of the coverage of his biography vs. merely his conversion. In addition, the Hebrew article is in fact a follow-up article, two years after his conversion, so there you have continued coverage.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by הסרפד (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article has enough WP:V & WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has significant coverage in Reliable sources which are verifiable. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only one possible reliable source that is anywhere near substantial, the Jerusalem Post article in ref. 2. (and possibly ref 10,whichI cannot read) Everything else is either a mere notice, an unreliable source, the same source used multiple times, or his own work. ref 14, for example, is a self-published book--nothing in CreateSpace is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 10 is a full-length article (or rather an interview article) in the Hebrew edition of Mishpacha, the most widely distributed Haredi magazine in Israel, according to the sourced statement at the Hebrew Wikipedia. Knowing how the Haredi press works, Sherman was almost certainly covered by Mishpacha's Hebrew- and English-language competitors in similar detail. I can find no evidence of that online, but that is not surprising. That, when taken with Ref 2, should be enough. There does seem to be some COI involved, though—see commons:Special:Contributions/Adamreinman, and compare with the History of this article—so perhaps more skepticism is warranted. At best, it should be stubified. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources certainly meet WP:BIO. Haredi newspapers and magazines often look for stories of converts for their Shavuot issues, but this person seems to be getting ongoing coverage in reliable sources. Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usually when I find the phrase "X is notable because" within an article, it is a red flag that the subject isn't notable. However, it often helps to be able to quickly establish why a subject is deserving of encyclopedic coverage, and it isn't immediately apparent to me here. However#2, the article has established notability via WP:GNG with multiple instances of substantial coverage by reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:54, 22 January 2015 (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.