Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matis Weinberg

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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matis Weinberg[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This was PROD'd, but edits of another editor indicate they do want content kept. The only coverage of this person is unproven past allegations (see history) of misconduct, that didn't result in any conviction. There are no sources to indicate notability. There are no sources outside the allegations. I didn't removed unsourced claims, as that would empty the article. Writing some books, of unknown success, isn't notable. Being in a famous family isn't notable, even if the claim was sourced. One reason for not leaving the PROD, is I don't want this easily brought back. The article has only two possible versions: an unsourced promotional puff piece, or a poorly sourced scandal article. --Rob (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expressed serious concerns about this article at WP:BLPN in April, 2014, suggesting deletion as a possibility. My concerns remain. We cannot have an unreferenced BLP, but the only significant coverage of this person in reliable sources has to do with unproven allegations of sexual impropriety, forcefully denied by the subject. This material that should not be in a BLP. I agree with Rob. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a sourceless, content-free article that, despite the subject's many magnum opera, bothers not list any of them. Seligne (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not enough sources are available to write a neutral article. Prior versions of the article placed undue weight on unverified scandals. Jehochman ^Talk 04:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jehocham: you deleted my rewrite of the controversy section without merit today. The scandals were verified with independent, third-party reputable sources such as The Yeshiva University Commentatory student newspaper, The Jewish Week, JTA, etc. I sense that you're using your admin status to bully me because your statements are that reputable sources haven't been used, but they have. I feel that you're hiding being BLP regulations. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete– unsourced BLP. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced BLP Meir Simchah (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above; no evidence of notability Spiderone 10:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. The author has written some pretty neat books, but as far as I know he doesn't meet GNG. Yoninah (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this in an unsourced biography of a living person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be noted that almost all of the votes for delete note that the article is unsourced and that the subject is not notable, except for poorly sourced scandals. The article is now sourced and he is cited in these sources as being notable. In fact, one source refers to him, and I quote as "one of our greatest contemporary Jewish thinkers." I didn't write this and not having known the man or even met the man, I cannot agree or disagree with this statement, but it is an example of a verifiable claim to what amounts to a massively compelling rationale to maintain this article. OK -- so he had a scandal. And maybe that made him even more famous, or infamous. But to suggest that he's not notable just because he wrote some books and being an author doesn't make one famous? True, but being well known in his field is the bar that needs to be surpassed, and this guy is quite notable in his field of rabbinical authors, lecturers, thinkers and scholars. And then there's the scandal, which was quite verified and balanced. But perhaps it could be more verified and more balanced. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DRosenbach: It's still poorly sourced. You quoted israelnationalnews.com calling him a great thinker. But, that was just an editorial by somebody arguing about gay marriage and calling somebody with the same opinion a great thinker. Except for that one sentence, the article says nothing about him. If it had bothered to say why he was a great thinker, that might of helped. I see no substantial biographical coverage of this person. Also, please be aware genealogical websites, like this should not be used as sources, as they contain unverified user-generated content. The fact it was necessary to resort to such poor sources to be able to claim the biographical material is sourced, goes to show how non-notable this person is.. --Rob (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used the genialogical site for information about his father -- it turns out that the Internet is not the best place to find substantial information about old rabbis.

I think you're being overly particular here. You critique my use of supplementary sources, but ignore the solid sources that focus on Weinberg. It just happens to be the case that unlike movie stars, there are rarely articles written about rabbis, unless they are in the top 1%. Weinberg is in the top 10%. That the article doesn't yet show articles that meet your exquisitely high definition of notability means that more support must be brought - there's a tag for that called "please include more sources to establish notability," but it doesn't mean that an article gets deleted. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still not enough sourcing to write a balanced article, at least for me. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:16, 11 November 2020 (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.