Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yitzchak Etshalom

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzchak Etshalom[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG - The only reliable independent sources were My Jewish Learning, YU Torah, and Jewish Holidays, and those weren't actually super relevant to his career. The other sources pulled from were a school newspaper known as the Shalhevet Boiling Point, several about the author sections from Urim Publications, the actual amazon page of a book, and other sources that don't prove notability. Further searches find no other possible sources that mention him in any meaningful way. I chose not to notify the creator of the article of this discussion, not only because the creator has a clear conflict of interest, and not only because they pushed this article through after it was rejected from AfC for complete plagiarism of a non-notable and unreliable source, but because they have been blocked for sockpuppetry at two proposed speedy deletions of this article. I don't see reason to keep this article. I could be wrong, and that Yitzchak Etshalom is actually notable and these sources barely pass him through GNG. It's close. But I personally believe this article should be deleted - there's an argument to be made that Rabbi Etshalom is accomplished and should be notable, but I don't believe he is right now. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The post was kind of long, and I don't want to fearmonger, but we should probably keep watch for further sockpuppetry if the creator finds out. The past two usernames had to do with jewish culture and being a bookworm, so i don't know I guess keep a look out? Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't about the author sections on the websites of publishers he signed with count as a clearly paid source, or at least a compromised one? Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting comment from Bearian (talk · contribs), Adamant1 (talk · contribs), and buidhe (talk · contribs) - thoughts on this discussion, and also a comment on possible sockpuppetry from the two users below? Take a look at the page history, the contested speedy deletions, the grammar usage I want to know your thoughts. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited, read the article and I do believe that Yitzchak Etshalom is a notable person. I would like to see more sources but It should not be deleted. The newspaper article does show notability in my opinion. Rosh Beit Midrash is big position in what I've researched. The sources are fine, just more are needed. They were not fine when they were from amazon.com but those were removed. I believe this article subject is noteworthy and should not be deleted. From the sources one can clearly see that Yitzchak Etshalom is notable within the Jewish community of Los Angeles I think this article needs a few better sources. Overall I am contesting this deletion I think it should be closed and better sources should be added. (judged by nominator as Keep)

@Sycolo: Sources from Urim Publications are what's known as "paid sources" - where the institution has something to gain from giving an unreliable description. I'm not alleging that Urim Publications has done that, but as a general policy, Wikipedia doesn't rely on publisher "about the author" sections as a reliable source (see WP:SPONSORED). As for the newspaper, the Shalhevet Boiling Point is a school newspaper, and while school newspapers can be used to provide some basic background information, they do not establish notability on their own. Also, I'm curious - why would you revert the SineBot signing your post? It seems strange given that I can see who wrote this anyway. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am new to wikipedia, I am just trying to contribute and give back to what Ive benefited for years off of. Thank you for explaining that. I would agree then in that case that those are unreliable sources and should be removed. I think that school newspaper is an overused for a school newspaper considering what you told me. Also, I do not know how these discussions work and when to sigh or not. Again I appreciate you taking the time to explain to me and help me use wikipedia more correctlySycolo (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Sign all your posts with four tildes, ~~~~. My problem is, if there's nothing left after removing those sources, which is essentially correct, then the article is inherently non-notable. Should Yitzchak Etshalom have greater press coverage? In my opinion, yeah, absolutely. Does he right now? No, not enough to warrant an article here. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Yitzchak Etshalom is notable because of the multiple sources written on him. My main issue with this article is that some of the sources may be compromised so I would like new sources but he is notable and I am contesting this deletion just clean up the self published ones and add some non compromised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.104.175 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC) (judged by nominator as Keep)[reply]

@67.49.104.175: To establish notability per the general notability guidelines, there needs to be multiple independent, reliable, significant sources providing in-depth coverage about the subject. Urim Publications is a sponsored source, making it unreliable, and the Shalhevet Boiling point is a school newspaper, meaning it could be useful but it cannot establish notability. The rest of the sources similarly do not establish notability. In the absence of other sources, which are on you to provide because I could find none, this article is non-notable.Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any reliable sources. This is not even a close case. A biography of a living person for general purposes of notability needs a good source for every single claim, especially possibly controversial claims. As far as special notability as a religious leader, I don't see any evidence in the article as it stands. I have long agreed with the common outcomes for clergy articles here at AfD. Just to be sure, I did several searches online, but I don't see any citations to the most well-known media either of newspaper of record or within the Jewish community, such as Haaretz or The Forward (I searched specifically in their website). There are zero such sources. In 2004, the argument might have been accepted that articles about living person can have "compromised" sources, but in 2021, no reasonable person can make that argument since Wikipedia has been around for 20 years and everybody knows what we are and are not, especially 15 years after the Seigenthaler incident. I don't have the expertise or buttons to investigate allegations of sock puppetry, so I regretfully demur. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear fail of the general notability guidelines and the ones specific to biographies of living people. The only possible thing that might give him notability is his published works, but there's zero evidence that they are notable or, more importantly, that he is notable for writing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2021 (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.