Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Brander

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 delete. v/r - TP 07:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Brander[edit]

Kenneth Brander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable individual. No third party references describe this person in the level of detail required for a biography. Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Brander is a rising star in the Jewish world and has achieved notoriety on many fronts. This article clearly needs some good work to make it up to snuff but nonetheless its important to have it. 74.102.231.14 (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I would like to contest this deletion. This individual is notable both as a dean and university vice president [1] as well as a published scholar [2]. His biography is described in detail on the university website [3] in the level of detail required for a biography. Idtboy (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2014 (EST)
  • I don't believe being a mid-level dean at a mid-level institution is an indication of notability. I don't believe that unpublished drafts are published. The primary sourced "about" page has no biographical detail. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did, yes. I don't believe that puff-piece articles with no detail are substantial biographical works. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Why do you refer to the 15-paragraph article as having "no detail?" On the contrary, it appears quite detailed, and appears to reflect precisely what a biography-supporting article would contain--in terms of biographical content. And Sun-Sentinel is clearly an RS. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep The reliable and verifiable sources in the article and available elsewhere meet the notability standard. After further review and input, I agree with the argument that the article should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this WP:N rabbi, there are so many WP:V and WP:RS about and by him on: "Kenneth Brander", books, scholar that prove this beyond any doubt. The article merely needs improved editing which can easily be done. The nominator could have sought WP:EXPERT advice at WP:TALKJUDAISM on the matter to avoid the rush to an AfD. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of those results either mention him in passing or don't mention him at all. Are you sure there's sufficient detail? Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hip -- there is no requirement that the majority of results meet GNG. So its irrelevant whether they do. All that is required is that the minority that you implicitly refer to as doing more than mentioning him in passing meet GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I would suggest adding just his name and some credentials to the page: Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future, an organization which he currently runs and started. His page in its current state is untenable and should be deleted.Pretzelguy (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC) — Pretzelguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • NOTE to closing admin: The above is the first and only edit [4] by newby User Pretzelguy (talk · contribs) who cites no WP policies and just raises more questions about himself than about the subject of this AfD. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTE to closing admin: I am of the opposite opinion from IZAK about the notability of the article in question, but I agree with him that the !vote by Pretzelguy should be discounted. BMK (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - University assistant deans are not notable. BMK (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not an assistant dean, apparently, but a full dean. As well as rabbi, founder of a high school, etc. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does appears to be the case, but nevertheless, he is not the Dean of Yeshiva University, but a dean of one of its units, one among many. BMK (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I can read. Please pay close attention to what I write: he is not The Dean of Yeshiva University, a unitary position, he is ONE OF Yeshiva University's multiple number of deans. Every major department or school within the university will have its own dean, the person is charge of that unit. Unless the dean is otherwise notable being the dean, the head of a department or school within a university does not give one notability.
  • I'm reacting to your !vote. Based on your misunderstanding that he is an "assistant dean." He's an EVP of the university. And he is dean of the center; as far as I can tell the university has four centers, and Adrienne Asch is director of a second one, and Steven Fine is director of a third one. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this page on their website, Yeshiva University has 12 deans. Being one of 12 people at the same level in a organization does not confer notability.
  • According to this page of their website, Brander is one of 5 vice presidents of the university, and there are two senior vice presidents above that level on the totem pole. Again, being one of five people three levels down from the top does not confer notability. BMK (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, my !vote is based primarily on GNG. But he is one of four deans of a Center at the university -- and the deans of two of the other centers are also notable, with wp articles. And he is also a rabbi, and has been the spiritual leader of two synagogues, and has founded the Weinbaum Yeshiva High School, and was Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America, and has had at least two articles in RSs fully devoted to him or his works and many others that have more than passing mention of him. It's not a determination made solely on "is being Dean of a Center of the university enough?" --Epeefleche (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we know his resume. The one thing you omit is that none of that adds up to notability. BMK (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the contrary. Meeting wp:GNG by having significant coverage by virtue of having at least two articles in RSs fully devoted to him or his works and many others that have more than passing mention of him adds up to notability. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A haphazard list of minor accomplishments none of which rises to the level of notability for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the majority of the !voters have indicated, he is notable. Simply because he meets GNG, including a 15-paragaph article about him in an RS, and various other RS articles that contain more than passing mention of him. It doesn't matter whether he is an assistant dean (he is a full dean it appears) or a janitor -- if he meets GNG, he is notable for wp purposes. And while the 15-paragraph biographical review of him is anything but "haphazard," that wouldn't matter -- GNG encompasses substantial RS coverage, whether haphazard or not. Furthermore, the assertion that the RS coverage has "no detail" is clearly incorrect, as discussed above. Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that there is one article which meets the requirement of GNG (i.e. independent reliable secondary sources) does not mean that the subject necessarily passes GNG, which says, quite specifically:

      "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article (emphasis added)

      What you have here is a man who's been the rabbi at two synagogues, and is now an assistant dean at a university. I'd be hard pressed to think of anyone else in the encyclopedia with credentials that minimal who has an article, but, in any case, those three things -- which are his claim to fame -- do not make him notable. BMK (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for admitting that the 15-paragraph RS on him meets GNG. As you will note, I pointed out that the sources that support the conclusion that he meets GNG include not only that article, but also "various other RS articles that contain more than passing mention of him." Examples are in the refs in the article that are to RSs -- there are between half a dozen and a dozen of those. GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". He has received precisely that. That is why the majority of the !voters here have !voted Keep. Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misunderstanding the notability standards. There can be gazillions of articles in reliable sources that mention his name in passing, and it doesn't add one iota to his notability. It takes numerous significant coverage articles to do that, and there is nothing like that for this person - just that one article, and nothing else, which is not sufficient. BMK (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me add, if the coverage was exactly what we have now, and Brander had leaped up to become the Dean of Yeshiva University, that would be different. It might still be borderline to some people, but I'd be inclined to say that the Dean of a fairly major institution such as that is inherently notable. This is not the case for Assistant Deans, of which there are a plethora. Brander may someday be notable enough to have an article, but that is not the case at this time. BMK (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've somewhow mis-read (again) what I wrote. I wrote -- twice now; this is the third time: "the sources that support the conclusion that he meets GNG include not only that article, but also "various other RS articles that contain more than passing mention of him." And that is what the majority of the !voters here have also said. Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I didn't misread, I do not share your evaluation of those other articles. They are not significant coverage. You've got press releases masquerading as a newspaper article and other garbage like that, and they are far from sufficient to show notability.

    Also, please remember that AfD is not a !vote, it's the quality of the arguments which determine the closing, so it's silly to keep pointing out the numbers, especially when the discussion is still ongoing (and particularly when there are 4 "keep" !votes and 3 "delete" votes). We're less than halfway through the 7 day period. BMK (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Brander is a substantially influential figure in both the Jewish and Academic spheres. He warrants a page on the merit of his research and rulings are also of not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.196.147 (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The IP address above has no edits credited to it since 2009 except for this comment.
  • Are there reliable sources that say that? BMK (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article reflects many RSs that speak of his leadership positions in the religious and academic communities (spiritual leader at the Lincoln Square Synagogue, rabbi of the Boca Raton Synagogue, founder of the Weinbaum Yeshiva High School, "Top 50 Jewish Community Builder" list, YU EVP, Dean of DJF, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America), and cite his religious opinions--for example in an article devoted to discussing his opinion with regard to the impact of a natural disaster on Jewish law requirements to observe the Sabbath. Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone has an opinion, and I assume every rabbi expresses his or hers, but I see no indication in the sources provided that Brander's are "influential". BTW, what kind of "research" does he do, and what authority has he to make "rulings"? What I'm seeing here from his advocates is a lot of hand-waving and boot-strapping, not clear-cut and straightforward notability and significance. BMK (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every rabbi has full articles in RSs about an opinion of his. Not every rabbi is the spiritual leader of a synagogue (or, here, two). Or founds a high school. Or is Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. Or has the other indicia. None of this is hand-waving -- it is all RS-supported hard-fact straight-forward material. The hand-waving is the effort to ignore it. As to the level of his authority -- it is the level inherent in the various positions indicated above and in the article and relative to the institutions (the two synagogues, the high school, the university, the Rabbinical Council of America) with which he has held those positions, but it would be off-topic to discuss here the details further and it is of course irrelevant what "research" he does -- thought if you look at his writings perhaps you can deduce it.Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Brander is a wonderful figure who is inspiring and also fulfills all the biographical requirements for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.102.47 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I have struck out the above comment for these reasons: The above IP has said in his edit summaries on the article that he or she knows Brander personally, and the editor has been repeatedly trying to add a large amount of unsubstantiated unsourced information into the article on the basis of their personal knowledge, over the objections of other editors. (They have also used 66.87.117.237, 129.98.152.14 and other addresses to do this.) The material they have been adding is a mixture of plausible and outright falsehoods, hoaxes, and jokes, things such as comments that Brander is self-ordained, that he has "not yet won a Nobel Prize" but has been nominated numerous times for the Peace Prize, that Brander has been compared to Abraham Lincoln (with a ref an article the title of which is "Rumor is Rabbi Brander breathes"), that because of his work with "granular composites" Brander has been given honorary Iowa citizenship, and so on. These are vandalistic edits, which editors on both sides of this issue can agree damage the article (which, if it is kept, should be the best possible article it can be). These actions should not be rewarded by allowing the editor to participate here, and the editor is warned that if he or she undoes the strikeout, or otherwise defaces this comment or the rest of the discussion, I will bring in an admin to deal with them. BMK (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP above has been blocked by Daniel Case for disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is a target of constant vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.160.18 (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, the above is a first-time one-time drive-by vote [5]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with BMK. I don't think there are enough RS and that his role is notable. Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to your first AfD !vote. How many RS do you believe are "enough"? And which position are your referring to, inasmuch as he has had many -- rabbi, his positions at the two synagogues, founder of the high school, his positions at the university, or his position at the Rabbinical Council of America?Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a number, but the RSs are not significant. I don't think any of these roles are notable, do his peers (other founders of High Schools? other people with the same university position?) have Wikipedia articles? Factsonlyplease39 (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche -I don't know if you're aware of ir, but posting a "counter" to every response you disagree with is generally considered ro be borderline disruptive. It's quite clear what your views are regarding the article in questions. That's a single !vote in the scheme of things here, and the !vote of Factsonlyplease39 is another one. Generally speaking, it's not considered good form to counter specific !votes in this manner, as opposed to discussing generalities. BMK (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes editors raise different points. For example -- you in your !vote based it on the mistaken belief that he is an assistant dean. New point. Deserved a correction. Similarly here, the editor raises new points, which similarly are being discussed. Who knows -- the discussion has just led to one editor changing their mind; it may lead to others. There is nothing at all improper about that. Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Explain to me why J. David Bleich, an article I created back in 2005 that has stood the test of time, is notable but Rabbi Brander is not notable? I have met both in real life. Both are, in their own ways, great scholars and as has been pointed out, subjects of Reliable Sources. P.S. You may delete this comment, but don't delete the article! Man katal (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banned user Shalom Yechiel is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Hipocrite (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck out comment from banned user. BMK (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With regards to the being in the top 50 Jewish Community Builders in South Palm beach - this is an area of population of less than [1200] this may need clarification; if this refers to the South of the entire county of Palm Beach this may increase the noteability. It appears to be a lot of minor noteable acheivements but many of them would only be noteable in distinct local areas rather than on a wider scale. If we are after major noteability it doesnt appear to be something that this individual has. Amortias (T)(C) 20:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. The keep !votes are primarily focused on whether he meets our general notability guideline. Which you can read at wp:GNG. It focuses not (as your analysis does) on whether a person's title is notable (or titles, in this case). But whether the person has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Thus, people can meet GNG if all they are is a rabbi who has been spiritual leader at the Lincoln Square Synagogue, rabbi of the Boca Raton Synagogue, founder of the Weinbaum Yeshiva High School, Dean of DJF, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America ... if they meet GNG ... without worrying about the size of the synagogues, the high school, DJF, etc. Epeefleche (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither of his positions appear to be of note outside of the communities he is involved in; his role Executive Vice-president for Univeristy and Social Life would have limited effect outside of the University and its associated organisations. His role as Dean for a Centre of a university may be noteable locally but would not be something that people would be able to recall or even be aware of its existence outside of the University itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.231.14 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His job and the refs do not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. BMK makes some good points. Edison (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2014 (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/Kenneth_Brander&oldid=1171699315"