Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Menken

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 Draftify. While there is no consensus, this is a reasonable solution to a stalemate to give @Avigdorim: time and the content as it seems possible Menken might be worth covering within the context of the coalition, which is a draft at User:Avigdorim/sandbox or the coalition might be worth adding to Menken. This way history and attribution are preserved. Avigdorim feel free to ping me if you need a history merge or anything down the line. Star Mississippi 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Menken

[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 article does not appear to meet WP:GNG, the only non-independent cited source includes only passing mention of the subject and does not clearly demonstrate notability. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep Subject has been showing up a lot on news sites recently, I'll have to do a search. The new org he runs claims 2000 rabbis behind it, see the new cite by X-Editor. So he's much more notable than when page was created (by me, 2009) and the last time it was nominated for deletion, which was rejected. The page needs to catch up, and the org needs a page too. I can work on that next week, I just haven't been active or kept up. Avigdorim (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, could you link me to the previous AfD? I wasn't able to find anything but would be interested in reading. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just have this vague memory of this being discussed, probably between 2010-2015. I was just trying to find it myself. Avigdorim (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty rusty on Wikipedia edits, and I'm sure I'll mess up the Infobox, but I'll try to revamp this page... well, I see a deletion is normally 7 day discussion, so I'll try to make some edits here Sunday. You've reminded me to dust it off. Avigdorim (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, adding to the article would be great. Others will also likely chime in here with feedback. Cheers, SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 16:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep I think the page should remain because Rabbi Menken is a prominent person. Becky613 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Judaism. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added some material, and have started to build an article on Coalition for Jewish Values in my sandbox (I said I was going to do that "next week" on April 21). There's a lot here, all kinds of media mentions of the org and Menken as managing director, a lot more than I saw for his other work. So it's up for vote but I think both are notable. Avigdorim (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep votes are not based in policy but there also haven't been any Delete comments since the addition of new content to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the new content, I would still recommend delete. There are 12 citations -- the only citation which is not written by the subject, is still live, or includes more than passing mention is an interview, so this article does not pass WP:NBIO unless other citations demonstrating notability and including significant coverage are added. Being the leader of the Coalition of Jewish Values does not inherently suggest the subject is notable unless they are referenced in more than passing mention in the context of that organization (in the citations in the article and others I've found Menken is barely referenced or has a pull quote, which is not enough to craft a biography from nor demonstrate notability). It's just not clear to me that the subject can be demonstrated as notable without adding some significant new article -- my digging hasn't uncovered anything that would solve these issues. SiliconRed (he/him • talk) 13:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't refer to WP policies, it's been a long time since I edited. To me it seems clear, now that I dig into the rules, that the Coalition for Jewish Values meets WP:N, because there are at least 3 articles I found talking about it, plus lots of news stories with quotes. Menken seems to be the guy getting quoted and interviewed the most, especially on video, more than passing mention. But I agree the org is more notable than someone who works for it. Avigdorim (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While this article relies too much on primary sources and self-written articles (of which there are many), and not enough on reliable independent sources, still there is this interview, which does go into a bit of depth, and this, which reports on the subject critiquing The Washington Post for doxxing an Orthodox Jew. I just added a brand new source which makes passing reference to the subject's views on the SCOTUS leak. According to WP:NBASIC, while multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is required, still if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. StonyBrook _babble 04:56, 11 May 2022 (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.