Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Becher

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Gateways as an acceptable compromise between deleting the content and maintaining a separate article. Shereth 16:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Becher[edit]

Mordechai Becher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is the third of three new biographies [1] [2] [3] about the small full-time staff of an Orthodox Jewish organization called Gateways that has about four or five full time rabbis working for it. The article about its founder was nominated for deletion for not being notable beyond creating the organization. Another article about one of its rabbis was then nominated for deletion for Wikipedia:Content forking, failing Wikipedia:Notability (people) and a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. The same goes for the present article because it's about an Orthodox rabbi who is advertised as being "notable" having served in the Israeli army and is a popular speaker among the newly-religious. These criteria are not enough to establish notability. To his credit he has written a few books geared to newly-religious Jews, but such literature is also very widespread and such authors are not regarded as notable writers as these writings are mostly collections of their pep talks. This biography, like those of the other two rabbis, should be part of the organization (Gateways) that these rabbis have for many years created, served, and will be serving, as matters stand, and the biography/ies should be deleted and all their content merged into the main Gateways article. (Note, Wikipedia does not have and has avoided having "biographies" about every last outreach rabbi associated with Chabad, Aish HaTorah and Ohr Somayach all of whom can be "cited" as doing the exact same things Rabbi Becher does, and he is no exception.) IZAK (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Redirect and move all material to the main Gateways article. IZAK (talk) 06:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep
    • Gateways is an organization. Rabbi Becher works for Gateways. Gateways employs less than 50 full-time professionals and staff members. So yes, Rabbi Becher will be at the forefront of Gateways. However, Rabbi Becher exists independantly from Gateways, as do the other rabbis whose articles are being questioned on the basis of frivolously false assertions and subjective, disparate remarks. He is the author of, as cited, critically acclaimed, wildly popular texts and lectures that are delivered throughout the United States and internationally as well -- this is not forking of a single unit but elaboration of two separate, distinct and substantial entities.
    • Citations have been provided for Rabbi Becher being world reknowned, internationally popular and having written critically acclaimed, instant hit texts - he is clearly notable.
    • This is not advertising any more than any other article of any other celebrity who is famous because something he or she writes, says, fabricates, manufactures or thinks about has been put into commercially viable "packaging" and sold for profit.
    • Your premise for this AfD is similarly invalid -- Delete, redirect and move is incomprehensible. If we delete and redirect, what are we moving? You mean to merge this article, for which this is an inproper forum. This is for deleting articles that do not merit existence based on violations of Wikipedia policy, such as lack of notability, lack of encyclopedic content or copyright violation. None of these apply, and your very admission that you recommend redirect attests to your lack of precision in generating this AfD.
    • To his credit he has written a few books geared to newly-religious Jews, but such literature is also very widespread and such authors are not regarded as notable writers as these writings are mostly collections of their pep talks
Do you have citations to support your subjective assertion that this type of writing is widespread, and so widespread that authors are not notable even when they are the most sought after speakers in Jewish outreach? Do you have a source to support your subjective assertion that these writers, who are so sought out to be considered the most sought out in the country, are not notable because their writings are merely collections of their highly inspirational talks? Your disparaging remarks and poor use of words to describe both this and the other rabbis and related items is evidence of your lack of sensitivity for the subjects and topics covered by these articles -- perhaps you should refrain from making statements about them or recommending them for deletion, or deletion and redirection or even deletion, redirection and moving (whatever that means).
There are no "disparagements." Stick to the arguments. The fact that he writes some texts for ArtScroll is proof enough for you and anyone, since almost all of their non-textual Judaica in English is for outreach and the newly-observant. IZAK (talk) 07:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not a criteria for notability. --neon white talk 17:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi neon white, my response was directed at User:DRosenbach who wanted "proofs" that "this type of writing is widespread, and so widespread that authors are not notable" and my reponse to him was that since the author writes for ArtScroll he is not necessarily notable. IZAK (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The clever inclusion of information regarding other articles and other people is a deliberate scheme to tie all articles I have recently started together to substantiate deletion or merge of one based on the merits or lack thereof of another. The excessive bolding of words used primarily for voting can be interpreted as a clear violation of unspoken voting rules, with the potential of overly affecting the votes of future voters by falsely giving the impression that there is more substantial support for a particular type of vote based on the times the bolded word appears in the vote discussion. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no scheme and no extra voting and my Wikipedia writing style is fine so kindly lower your tones and accusations and of red herring arguments and stick to the discussions at hand. The fact remains that you chose to create four articles for one subject (Gateways) when one (Gateways) would have sufficed. The fact that right off the bat you chose to create separate brochure-like articles about a single organization and its three top rabbis, all of whom either founded and have worked full-time for that organzation for well on a decade, runs smack into problems of violating WP:NOTADVERTISING; WP:NOTMYSPACE; WP:NOT#WEBHOST and also WP:NPOV since you seem to be focusing on their work which you regard as important without providing any alternate and critical views at any time, and it may be, but to create four articles about one organization that then forks into articles about its three top rabbis reveals a clear problem of a POV slide in their favor. Therefore uniting all four articles into the one main Gateways article is the logical and balanced solution at this time. IZAK (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided all of the alternate/critical views available -- apparently, no one but you and the people who agree with your assertions after having read them on this page seem to have anything criticla to say about Rabbi Becher -- so there is no violation of WP:NPOV. As this and other recent articles I have started are notpromoting causes or events, they are not violations of WP:NOTADVERTISING. I do not assert, nor have I ever, that these articles are "my" articles, or that this is "my information" -- they are primarily biographical articles of notable Orthodox Jewish rabbis who are heavily involved in kiruv and Jewish outreach. They are not merely the Chabad rabbi down the block -- they are nationally or internationally known for their riveting lecturing abilities, producing books and audio media that are critically acclaimed and/or wildly popular, they are sought after throughout the United States and they are giants in their field -- hardly non-notable. There is similarly no violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE, as not this, nor any of the other articles under discussion, are anything similar to: my personal web page, a file storage area, a dating service or a memorial -- it's a wonder how this and other violations, or should I rephrase, non-violations, were mentioned without substantiation. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand the principle of notability. The relevant guideline is here WP:N. Notability needs to be established with coverage in reliable second party sources, it differs from fame and success. We cannot accept your personal views of a person as grounds for notability. It needs to be verifiable and above all neutral, which this article has major problems with. Please remember to assume good faith and do not take an afd personally it is merely an editing process. --neon white talk 17:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are Olden Polynice, Jim Farmer, Jeff Nelson, Mark LeVoir, and a thousand other individuals featured with articles? Most people probably don't know who they are, and they didn't do much other than their job, which was to play basketball, football or another sport for whichever team paid them to show up. But they are notable because not that many people get to play professional sports and thats why they have an article. In much the same way, Rabbis Becher, Rietti and Suchard are notable because they are leaders in their field. They may not make hundreds of thousands of dollars or write books or give speaches that are read of listened to by hundreds of thousands of people, but they are leaders in their field and are appreciated for it by the many thousands of people who do know who they are, do listen to their lectures, do read their books and do think they should be featured by articles because of the notability generated by these feats. These feats, and the associated notability, are well documented by the multiple sources provided. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid arguement for keeping an article as it presumes every article on wikipedia is perfect. Individuals who play professional sports are inherently notable, unless the person in question has then that is irrelevant to the discussion. You will need to provide evidence that he is considered a significant figure in the academic or literary world. None of the sources in the article currently do this. A person may have achieved alot but if it is not noted by second party sources then they cannot be said to be notable. --neon white talk 01:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you should bring up WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because you failed to recognize that I only included a discussion of various other dubiously meritorious articles after other editors compared both this and other rabbis with the vast majority of rabbis who do not have articles -- to state that these rabbis don't deserve articles because those other rabbis don't have articles is a clear violation of what is written in the aformentioned policy. My statements in reference to these professional sportsmen do not constitute the bulk or even a major portion of my argument -- they were merely a rebuttal of the suggestion that these rabbis cannot have articles because not every Jewish outreach rabbi can have an article.
There are also 4 third party citations (Jewish Press, Texas Jewish Post and two from Jewish World Review) substantiating Rabbi Becher's notability, so your assertions that the article does not "do this" is incorrect. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he is -- as cited by multiple sources establishing both his noted popularity and the demand for his works, both written and spoken. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per nom. Rabbi Becher doesn't seem to be notable at this time. When he becomes notable, he should have an encyclopedia article of his own. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am inclined to think of publication by one of a small number of well-known religious publishers like Artscroll and his status as a commentator in the OU as as representing a reasonable gatekeeping criterion for notability in the religious Jewish world. My difficullty with IZAK's view is that it leaves me with criteria which seem to be entirely subjective, while the difficulty with acepting only publication in academic journals and the like is that it prevents what are really very notable religious perspectives from being reliably represented. It seems to me that relying on accepted gatekeeper institutions who have a reputation for reliability in the religious world involved represents a reasonable application of the core Wikipedia policy principles to the particular context. Of course one can always disagree with Artscroll's decision to publish certain authors, just as one can disagree with any source's decision to regard a particular individual as notable. But at least by relying on well-known institutions we are relying on sources that have a well-documented degree of acceptance in the community, not ourselves, to make the decision. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of that really guarantees notability. According to WP:CREATIVE, we are required to show that he is either an 'important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors , is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique or has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work. I cannot find evidence that any of these is true. --neon white talk 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's a religious figure, not an artist or academic. I believe WP:CREATIVE aren't the relevant criteria, applying them would be something like claiming an academic isn't notable because he hasn't won any league championships or starred in any academy-award winning movies. The community hasn't agreed on specific criteria for religious figures, so the general notability criteria for people are the relevant ones. These criteria are simply multiple WP:reliable sources. The relevant issue then becomes what constitutes a reliable source to identify who is notable in the Orthodox Jewish religious field. This is the issue I am addressing in my previous comment. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is also an author and an academic which come under WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACADEMIC criteria, i believe that is the only chance for notability due to the lack of second party sources needed for WW:BIO. --neon white talk 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it required that there be a book written about Rabbi Becher? There are no books written about more than half of all professional American sports figures, yet they have articles. Clearly, the criteria you are demanding are not being applied across the board, and constitutes discrimination by being applied strictly here. Citing 20 sources that substantiate that he is well known enough as a superb and leading member of the Jewish outreach movement should suffice for notability. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DRosenbach, the problem here is that the community has agreed to specific notability criteria for athletes(WP:ATHLETE), creative professionals (WP:CREATIVE), and certain other classes of people that give them a kind of "free pass" from the general notability criteria, on grounds that if one has had certain kinds of major accomplishments in ones field one is very likely notable. However, the community hasn't agreed to similar criteria for religious figures, so there's no general agreement that certain kinds of leadership positions or accomplishments in the field of religion make a religious figure automatically notable. I myself once proposed a set of criteria, and other people have as well, and so far they've all been voted down. See WP:Notability (religious figures). So yes, sports and religious figures are treated differently. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why this unevenhanded strictness with religious figures? Every professional athlete can have a page, while professioanl rabbis must have published a book? If a rabbi is touted as "one of the most prominent Jewish outreach speakers in America" and as being "internationally reknowned," why this unfairness? While I disagree that a person is not notable for doing his job (every POTUS, VP, Secretary of State, Manager of the Yankees, etc.) these rabbis are not ordinary -- they are extraordinary! And while that is my opinion, this opinion is based on the fact that they are heralded as such. Why is there so much contention? They are notable, as cited by the sources provided. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The simply answer is that religious figures are not as widely recognised as sports figures, actors etc. It isn't 'strictness' the general guidelines apply. However if this figure is recognised as a renowned professor, author etc we would need a second or third party independent source that says that. So far we don't have that. --neon white talk 15:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is not invited to speak in so many places for any reason other than his being notable. That is also why he has his own radio show as well as 3 cable television programs. There are now multiple citations provided from legitimate third-party journalistic sources. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many people invited to speak at non-notable and many shows on small cable channel and radio stations, none of this a criteria for notability nor is it proof that he is recognised as renowned. see WP:SYNTH. No sources have been presented so far. --neon white talk 13:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would prefer a different approach to the current one. Some inconsistencies are inevitable in a decentralized decision-making system. I've personally been unhppy that there are special notability criteria for (for example) pornographic actors, but not for (for example) philosophers and inventors (unless they happen to be academics, which many philosophers and inventors weren't). I personally think many kinds of people without special categories have made a much greater contribution to knowledge than many who have them, and I personally think the list of categories doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia's seriousness as an encyclopedia. (It's one thing to allow popular culture trivia, it's another thing to give it preferences and special passes). But so we have it. --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak keep. Unlike some of the others involved with this organization, this individual has a number of publications which I think gets him over the minimal threshhold of notability. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to guidelines. Writing a book is not a criteria. It has to be a significant work. --neon white talk 13:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be taken as a sign of weakness or censession to what I see as the unjustified, quite popular opinion, but if the regulations are unclear and there can really be so much back and forth without so much as a sway of anyone's convictions, perhaps this is being blown way out of proportion. Why can't you ignore what you see as a potential violation, of what may appear as an article without merit being allowed to continue to exist. The inclusion of this article presents information on an individual who many people deem notable and popular, even if you do not feel this way. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think having article on every single person is improving wikipedia, there has to be a 'cut-off' line. The relevant info in this article can easily be merged. --neon white talk 15:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say your objectivety has, unfortunately, disappeared some time ago. You argue, but you do not take my responses into consideration -- I haven't written an article on every single person. I have merely written articles on three individuals I find to be notable and that I could substantiate as being notable to many people, yourself and people of similar mind excluded. The very fact that you still contend that everyone can't have an article demonstrates that you have lost touch with both the spirit of this debate as well as the purpose of Wikipedia. This debate is not on whether or not I can write an article for Mordechai Becher and my mom and my mailman and my dental assistant. I, too, believe it or not, agree that not every single person should have a Wikipedia article -- and I have never suggested such a thing. But that is a far cry from writing an article on Mordechai Becher, an outstanding and leading voice in the fight against assimilation of nonobservant Jews in America who has gone out on a limb and authored books, hosted radio and television programs and traveled the country -- nay, the world -- to further his fight against losing Jewish souls. There is no relevant and irrelevant information in this article -- his notability has been established by the many independant news outlet citations, and the remainder serve to inform the reader of Rabbi Becher's various endeavors, both serious and liesurely, as does the content of any other celebrity article, such as that of Tom Cruise or Will Smith. All worthy, available information is to be incorporated into this article so that it can be the best source of verifiable information about Mordechai Becher. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 22:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little cool might be in order. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Shirahadasha that you (User:DRosenbach) need to tone down, especially when using words like "nay" it sets off the wrong buttons. Just calm down please. While Rabbi Becher is indeed a wonderful and idealistic rabbi, YET he is no different to thousands of others like him in the modern world who work in the field of kiruv ("Jewish outreach") as do all the thousands of Lubavitch Shluchim or Shlichim today and while they all do great work for Orthodox Judaism all over the world in very unique ways with constant public lectures and seminars all over, radio and TV shows, any other PR, and many with books and columns that they publish, yet they are not all on the level to qualify for biographies on Wikipedia and they never will be because Wikipedia is not chabad.org and neither is it "gateways.org" so please do not make this into a personal campaign. Noone is eliminating him when his bio can easily fit in the main Gateways article, which is a lot better situation than the no mention that the bulk of kiruv rabbis the world over do not get on Wikipedia. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mordechai_Becher&oldid=1089093933"