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 keep, per consensus about notability and the addition of reliable sources in the article. Non-admin closure. Jamie^☆S93 02:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Weinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non Notable, Unsourced Eatabullet (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I am not an expert on Rabbis, but I know the policy isn't about an article being sourced (that is what tags are for), the policy says notability is about being ABLE to verify, not how many citations the article currently has. I found this and this and this and this and hell, after that, I changed my !vote from "comment" to "Strong keep". You know, as nominator, you are obligated to research the topic before nominating it. A lack of sources means you TAG the article. If you can't find any after a good faith effort, THEN you go to AFD. To make matters more confusing, there are at least TWO DIFFERENT rabbis named "Yaakov Weinberg" that qualify as notable. (one died in 1966, the other in 1999). This means the nom is wrong on two counts, and we may need a disambig page to cover BOTH rabbis. Oh, and I'm not even Jewish, I just learned this in 5 minutes of searching on the FIRST page of Google. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response As a Wikipedia user, you should assume good faith sir. A snarky comment with a HEAP OF CAPS does not demonstrate good faith, and your tone is attacking in nature. Second, you shouldn't accuse someone of not researching something without any basis to backup your accusation. I certainly did research it, and I found all the Google information you did. Unlike you apparently, I didn't come to the conclusion that un-sourced blurbs from religious institutions and audio downloads on a religious site to be significant coverage or reliable sources that are independent of the subject, especially when the subject is a religious figure. Finally, if you Google anything you can find links...that doesn't make the person in question notable, as seen here, here and here (oh, and this too). In fact, I EVEN FOUND TWO DIFFERENT Pharmboys, though both don't seem to be notable. Eatabullet (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A magazine that covers religion *is* independent of the subject if it isn't controlled by him (ie: he is the subject). By this same logic, you would have to conclude that Sports Illustrated can't be a reliable source when it comes to sports. And if you were looking for me, all you would have to do is go to pharmboy.org. The others are frauds. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Eatabullet: The subject of this article published many articles in English language Haredi publications during his lifetime, such as in The Jewish Observer, and there have been articles published about him in other serious Orthodox journals and sources not all of which are available online. In fact quite often he was a sought after senior rabbi who gave approbations (haskomas in Hebrew) for the books of other aspirant rabbincal writers. Rabbi Weinberg's is very famous name in the world of the American yeshiva world and no expert in the field of yeshiva history in America in the last seventy years would ever dream of excluding him. In addition, user Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [1] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify a delete vote..." and the same applies here. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel, an accredited college, appears to meet criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC—"The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." --Elliskev 19:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There is a strong precedent that roshei yeshiva of a major institutions are notable. Jon513 (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep Yudel (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because he is one of the most important rosh yeshivas is post-WW II America. He was the only son-in-law and heir of Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman who founded the key Ner Israel Rabbincal College in Baltimore in the 1930s and whom Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg succeeded as its second rosh yeshiva until his death. He was a major leader of Agudath Israel of America, and there are many Orthodox Judaic articles written by him and about him and they can all be verified, even though not all may be online they do exist in verifiable and reliable sources. He definitely passes the WP:BIO and WP:N test big time. The article is essentially {{underconstruction}} and will no doubt be developed with time. The nomination is misinformed and should be withdrawn immediately. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - Again, where are the sources? For all your claims, there are no independent/reliable references to back up your statements. I think it's incredibly biased to use random links to Yeshivot and claim that it constitutes a reliable source, no matter how many of the faithful may say it's ok. If you disagree that's fine, that's what the debate is for. Eatabullet (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I would just like to remind you Eatabullet that a notable figure is one who is considered notable by many. Having led a yeshiva that is 90 years old and with a student body numbering approximately 800 I think Rabbi Weinberg is quite notable. Nerguy (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The principal at my 135 year old high school led a student body of approximately 2000 for decades. Can he be on wikipedia too? Is that worthy of a wikipedia article? Eatabullet (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eatabullet: You are comparing apples and oranges and are thereby making a false analogy. It is also important to have a sense of proportion in these type of discussions. Based simply on realities, there are about 13 million Jews in the world and about 6 million in North America and of those about 10% are Orthodox, so that it is illogical to compare a population group of about 600,000 with the population of the USA which is about 300 million, or alternately, given that there are very few yeshivas of the size of Ner Israel which Rabbi Weinberg headed, if the comparison you give would be based on proportions, he could be compared to any of the deans and presidents of any huge university, and he was more than that given his status as a leading Talmudist. In addition, his influence went far beyond his own institution because he served as an active guide and policy maker for many other institutions as well. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Role as rosh yeshiva of Ner Israel is an exceedingly strong claim of notability. I don't doubt that there is a measure of systemic bias that needs to be countered here in which material about individuals such as Rabbi Weinberg cannot be found in the reliable sources that typically have articles and obituaries about far more minor notables. Alansohn (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: The article has now been expanded with more reliable citations, facts and references and is no longer a stub. More will be added. The nominator is again kindly requested to withdraw the nomination. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:59, 24 October 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.