Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoel Glick

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. Unable to find multiple souces that declare him to be notable even with Israeli circles. WP:SELFPUB and does not meet WP:BIO (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoel Glick[edit]

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

non notable author of self published works. noq (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm unable to find any substantial sources using google that are not already in the article. The current sources don't appear to meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yoel Glick does not appear very much on Google, because his work is rather esoteric and he does not teach in large or popular institutions. His work in the last fifteen years has been done quietly. In the 1980s he ran a very important school for Kabbalah in Jerusalem's old city. Edoecohen (talk 17:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, esoteric nature of work is not a reason to keep. The key issue is whether the individual meets our policy for inclusion of biography inclusion. In particular, we need multiple, indepenent, reliable sources about Glick. If we have those we can keep. Otherwise it is very hard under Wikipedia policy and guidelines to justify keeping. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet qualifications to be included. Does not assert notability. Yossiea ^(talk) 17:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just did some searching on several academic databases - literary, religious and alternate press - and found not a single entry about this man.Sabiona (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Yes as I wrote above - his work is esoteric, meaning it will not appear in literary, religious or alternate press. Are those the only criteria of who can have an article on Wikipedia? Edoecohen (talk (UTC)

- You already added 'Keep' in a previous statement. Doing so again is not really...helpful. I was clarifying that while others had commented on his lack of coverage in Google and similar sources, I also checked paid databases and academic sources.Sabiona (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. The WP:ILIKEIT vote above doesn't really establish the notabilty of this subject. RadioFan (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Esoteric? Maybe. Notable? Not so much. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2010 (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.