Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard
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 already seems to have been merged there by the article creator. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mordechai Suchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Not notable, simply states creation of an organisation, but makes no assertion to that organisations notability, and seems to exist either only as a plug for the person, organisation, or both Ged UK (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Rabbi Suchard is very notable as the founder of the Gateways organization. More extensive information regarding his biography as well as regarding the organization has been solicited and is currently pending delivery. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I added references and cleaned up the article a bit, but it really needs more help. Bstone (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per additional sourcing added by Bstone, which further shows the notability of this particular rabbi. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there's more here including New York Jewish Week that discusses his work with Gateways. Could there also be more sourcing available in Hebrew? Possibly someone can search there? TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 00:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source/s you cite are only three "ads in print" for the Gateways programs. They are probably getting that press because they paid for pull page or significant ads in other parts of the papers, a not uncommon "professional courtesy" that Jewish newspapers extend to generous advertisers, and Gateways is known for its lavish spending on full-blown advertising in print, the mail, and on the Internet. IZAK (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect into Gateways. His meeting of the WP:BIO standard is questionable. Gateways, a small article, would be greatly enhanced by background information of its founder. In addition, it looks like his main claim to notability is his founding and leadership of Gateways. Combining the above reasons, makes merge the most reasonable solution. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gateways will be expanded -- it is two days old! Give it some time to expand and increasing its length by combining articles that each have their own merit to exist because of article length will be a moot issue. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to the Gateways article because he is its founder and it's his "claim to fame" so that this article not be a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a serious rabbi. Outside of founding and running Gateways, he has done nothing notable and has not been noted as such in the media. NOTE: The Rabbi Jonathan Rietti article should also be merged into the Gateways article for the same reasons since he is Gateway's leading lecturer. IZAK (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also fails as a serious rabbi -- are you joking? What is a serious rabbi? Is he a clown-type of rabbi? Your comments are inflammatory -- surely a violation of WP:NPOV as they at best lack fairness of tone and at most incite derision. Please keep your comments civil.
- He is the executive director and driving force behind an organization that affects thousands of individuals a year through its programs and lectures series. He is the subject of a number of articles, including at least one in The New York Times. Information will be added to the article as it expands and citations will similarly accrue. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In addition to being the founding rabbi and spiritual director of Gateways, he also serves on the responsa board of Ask The Rabbi. I think he passed the "serious rabbi" test pretty easily. Bstone (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All that Also fails as a serious rabbi means is that he is simply not a notable rabbi beyond organizing and running Gateways. He is not known for his scholarship and there is essentially nothing in the media or articles that claim he is anything more than an organizational/admistrative or "executive director" rabbi. Similarly not all Aish HaTorah or Ohr Somayach or Chabad rabbis get listed with articles as they too are just functionaries and are not serious rabbis and this does not mean they are clowns. Kindly assume good faith. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should review the meaning of words prior to using them -- words are, for the most part, objective. As brought from a dictionary, serious can refer to being deeply interested or involved, which I contend Rabbi Suchard is for taking the time, energy and effort to start Gateways. In fact, he even meets the criteria of being of such character or quality as to appeal to the expert, the connoisseur, or the sophisticate, as indicated by Gateways particular appeal to collegiates, young professionals and discerning Jews of all levels, giving them particularly focused direction on such things as Judaism's authenticity and the existence of the Oral Torah. If you had simply meant of considerable size or scope; substantial, I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming both good faith and that you are discerning enough to use a word that both conveys your intent as well as avoids ambiguity. I would hardly agree that serious denotes substantiality over frivolousness. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DRosenbach: At this time Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher are the creators and managers of Gateways and without them Gateways cannot exist at this time. Even the information "cited" in the article/s is mostly from Gateways brochures. Wikipedia need not host seperate articles about them, when all the information can be combined into the Gateways article itself. I am not advocating the loss of this information, but that it be moved to the main Gateways article where it belongs. Perhaps sometime in the future, when many more articles and sources emerge, they will merit their own biographies but for now Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher and Gateways are one and the same. IZAK (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK: At this time, Rabbis Rietti and Becher are independant entities. Gateways exists because of them, not [[]vice vera]]. They are each accomplished authors and lecturers, notable in their field of fighting American Jewish assimilation and developing and presenting course material for lecture series focused on establishing the authenticity of classical Jewish thought, philosophy, vision and ritual practice. Your assertion that this information belongs in the Gateways article is inaccurate. These articles are clearly expandable -- they do not currently project the full expanse of information relating to their subjects, and policy delineated both here and here dictates that they be allowed to maintain themselves for further expansion.
- As for Rabbi Suchard, he is the foudner of Gateways. He is notable as previously substantiated, and currently supersubstantiated by the sudden switch of focus of your siege to issues relating to bredth of coverage. Once again, as dictated by policy (both here and here), it complies with proper form to allow a 3-day old article to expand. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If, as according to you, Gateways is nothing without its rabbis then perhaps its article should be nominated for deletion instead. You cannot have it both ways. If the rabbis are what makes Gateways what it is then that is where they belong as they have devoted the last decade of their fairly young lives to it and it is the culmination of their careers at this time. They are happy and successful at Gateways and it does not look like they are leaving it any time soon. For the creator of the Gateways article it would have been wiser to put in all the comprehensive information into it, about its founding director Rabbi Suchard and about its two leading full time employees Rabbis Rietti and Becher who work for Gateways and Rabbi Suchard. Then, as the information about them and their whole operation would have beeen expanded with more sources, separate biographies about the rabbis could be an outgrowth down the line. It makes no sense writing one article about a small institution and then creating individual articles about three of its four full time rabbis. Therefore, the current approach of writing up separate articles about the organization and three of its rabbis is redundant, even if the rabbis have a somewhat broader resume, they are presently strongly indentified with, and work exclusively for, Gateways, AFAIK. IZAK (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they don't work exclusively for Gateways. Perhaps Rabbi Suchard, as the executive director, has only one job, but Rabbis Becher and Rietti have multiple responsibilities with multiple organizations. They are both on staff of the Mesorah Center for Continuing Jewish Education. What is this determination at eradication of articles whose subjects do not meet your criteria for notability -- i.e. that YOU do not think they are notable, when clearly, everyone who is familiar with them does believe them to be notable, and rightfully so? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DRosenbach: Personal views are not what matters as that would be a violation of NPOV. What is important is to see how these rabbis measure up with others, as for example in Category:Orthodox rabbis and if you will look it over you will notice the significant and notable stature of almost all rabbis there. It would have been wiser of you to include all the material about Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher in the Gateways article first and then to have sought some sort of consensus with editors at WP:JUDAISM to evaluate the validity of creating separate articles for the rabbis of Gateways, instead of in effect efect creating four articles about the same subject. IZAK (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's just it -- these are not my personal views! These are independant sources citing their deep involvement and notability in the Jewish outreach movement. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DRosenbach: Personal views are not what matters as that would be a violation of NPOV. What is important is to see how these rabbis measure up with others, as for example in Category:Orthodox rabbis and if you will look it over you will notice the significant and notable stature of almost all rabbis there. It would have been wiser of you to include all the material about Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher in the Gateways article first and then to have sought some sort of consensus with editors at WP:JUDAISM to evaluate the validity of creating separate articles for the rabbis of Gateways, instead of in effect efect creating four articles about the same subject. IZAK (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they don't work exclusively for Gateways. Perhaps Rabbi Suchard, as the executive director, has only one job, but Rabbis Becher and Rietti have multiple responsibilities with multiple organizations. They are both on staff of the Mesorah Center for Continuing Jewish Education. What is this determination at eradication of articles whose subjects do not meet your criteria for notability -- i.e. that YOU do not think they are notable, when clearly, everyone who is familiar with them does believe them to be notable, and rightfully so? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If, as according to you, Gateways is nothing without its rabbis then perhaps its article should be nominated for deletion instead. You cannot have it both ways. If the rabbis are what makes Gateways what it is then that is where they belong as they have devoted the last decade of their fairly young lives to it and it is the culmination of their careers at this time. They are happy and successful at Gateways and it does not look like they are leaving it any time soon. For the creator of the Gateways article it would have been wiser to put in all the comprehensive information into it, about its founding director Rabbi Suchard and about its two leading full time employees Rabbis Rietti and Becher who work for Gateways and Rabbi Suchard. Then, as the information about them and their whole operation would have beeen expanded with more sources, separate biographies about the rabbis could be an outgrowth down the line. It makes no sense writing one article about a small institution and then creating individual articles about three of its four full time rabbis. Therefore, the current approach of writing up separate articles about the organization and three of its rabbis is redundant, even if the rabbis have a somewhat broader resume, they are presently strongly indentified with, and work exclusively for, Gateways, AFAIK. IZAK (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DRosenbach: At this time Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher are the creators and managers of Gateways and without them Gateways cannot exist at this time. Even the information "cited" in the article/s is mostly from Gateways brochures. Wikipedia need not host seperate articles about them, when all the information can be combined into the Gateways article itself. I am not advocating the loss of this information, but that it be moved to the main Gateways article where it belongs. Perhaps sometime in the future, when many more articles and sources emerge, they will merit their own biographies but for now Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher and Gateways are one and the same. IZAK (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should review the meaning of words prior to using them -- words are, for the most part, objective. As brought from a dictionary, serious can refer to being deeply interested or involved, which I contend Rabbi Suchard is for taking the time, energy and effort to start Gateways. In fact, he even meets the criteria of being of such character or quality as to appeal to the expert, the connoisseur, or the sophisticate, as indicated by Gateways particular appeal to collegiates, young professionals and discerning Jews of all levels, giving them particularly focused direction on such things as Judaism's authenticity and the existence of the Oral Torah. If you had simply meant of considerable size or scope; substantial, I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming both good faith and that you are discerning enough to use a word that both conveys your intent as well as avoids ambiguity. I would hardly agree that serious denotes substantiality over frivolousness. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All that Also fails as a serious rabbi means is that he is simply not a notable rabbi beyond organizing and running Gateways. He is not known for his scholarship and there is essentially nothing in the media or articles that claim he is anything more than an organizational/admistrative or "executive director" rabbi. Similarly not all Aish HaTorah or Ohr Somayach or Chabad rabbis get listed with articles as they too are just functionaries and are not serious rabbis and this does not mean they are clowns. Kindly assume good faith. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: See related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Rietti. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His notability appears to be verified. --Ecoleetage (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep based on sources provided meeting the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because -- while I'm sure he's a fine rabbi -- he's still only starting to make a name for himself but he hasn't gotten there yet. Not enough coverage by useful media and nothing really notable yet for an encyclopedia. To the extent there's anything notable, it can be merged into suitable articles (e.g., as Izak suggests). Thanks. HG | Talk 08:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Most of Rabbi Suchard's "accomplishments" aren't notable (handing out an award, contributing to a politician), but being selected to accompany President Bush makes him seem somewhat notable. Despite mention of a New York Times article, I searched (using both the Times search and Google) and couldn't find anything. It's a close call, but I lean toward deleting the article until Rabbi Suchard's notability is more clearly established. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Malik Shabazz. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Gateways per Brewcrewer. Culturalrevival (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - maybe warrants mention on Gateways page, but NN for separate article. --Shuki (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Becher. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also didn't see the New York Times article that was mentioned. Would it be possible to provide a cite to it? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A New York Times article would be nice, but I don't know where you saw that mentioned. In lieu of that, I have provided citations from two articles from the Jewish Week, which has a weekly circulation of 70,000 homes. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:54, 16 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.