Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs

Non-notable individual/vanity. A cantor who also does art, and once had a tiny article printed about him in a minor weekly. Oh, and like a million other people, he met the Pope. Someone close to Kepecs has kept trying to insert this, and related material, into all sorts of articles. The Google test gets 4 hits for Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, all from Wikipedia mirrors, and 4 more hits for "Lawrence Kepecs", 2 discussion board entries he apparently made in 1998, and two others apparently not related to his individual. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only the notable (or pokemon-related) can get an article. --Mrfixter 20:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The image of Kepecs with JPII is in several articles where it hardly or barely seems relevant, as in the article Relations of Pope John Paul II with the Jewish People which needs some dekepecsification (and perhaps a move to a better title, like Pope John Paul II and the Jews). If Gary Krupp (in the background) is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia, I suppose one could cut away Kepecs and the Pope from the image to get a portrait of him. Uppland 23:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 02:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, where are the WP:MUSIC literalists to say performing internationally as a tenor may be criteria 2? Unenthusiastic delete, but Talk:Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs is interesting; keep it for reference for Hazzan, etc. Samaritan 04:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Keep. Samaritan 07:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Concur with User:Samaritan on merge of talk page. Significant work has gone into trying to fix this article up to Wikipedia standards, which is admirable, but until Page 13 of the Oxford English/Hebrew-Hebrew/English dictionary, ©1998 ed. 4 has an entry, this guy is insufficiently noteworthy to warrant an independent article. I'm not opposed to the inclusion of his name in the caption of the pic of him giving the pope a mezuza, eventhough I think the gesture is unspeakably bizarre, but just because he's named in the Wikipedia doesn't mean he deserves a (badly written, incredibly POV) biographical article. Tomer TALK 09:06, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm changing my vote to a VERY WEAK keep. User:Dystopos' argument has not made me entirely change my mind, although it has given me pause to ponder. I'm of the opinion now that perhaps this article can be fixed to be less of a vanity piece, although I'm not entirely convinced yet that the good Cantor is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article on him. That said, however, I don't think I need to be entirely convinced. OTOH, I'm still incredibly annoyed by the sock-puppet attack, and think Victor/Merlin/Merlinzor/etc.etc.etc. could use a good spanking out behind the woodshed. Tomer TALK 02:43, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not concur. Kepecs is a well known personality in the cantorial world. The fact that he was chosen by the Vatican to be one of thirteen cantors to sing for the Pope and presented him with one of his art works is an important point. This was the last group to meet Pope John Paul II (urged by the Pope himself I might add.) and made history. Kepecs' art I am told (currently doing research on it) has sold for as much as $65,000, and I believe he's got an album or two out on liturgical music. He is very interesting. Keep it for future reference.-User:Merlinzor May 5, 2005
  • Note: creator of the article.Jayjg (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. It's informative, and gives you insights into what a CANTOR'S life is all about, but its not a typical cantor's life as there are many other elements that make this particular cantor's life interesting to read about. Please keep this article so other people can share in this great wealth of knowledge.- bitchykitty cinco de mayo 2005
  • Note: User:205.188.113.183's only edit on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Kepecs is a noteworthy Reverend Cantor - and the title is correct. He has an exceptional tenor voice quality, similar to Luciano Pavarotti. I heard him at a concert in Canada, and he wowed the audience with his spectacular delivery, and mastery of Cantorial music and italian opera. In my opinion, nobody even came close to his delivery. Mark my word. You will see great things from this guy, give the researchers a chance. The fact that Kepecs sang for and gave the Pope a mezuzah has appeared in numerous newspapers, including The Jewish Star, The Nassau Herald, and I think the front page of the New York Times had an article on it as it was happening in Rome in January. His concert in Rome was televised throughout Italy. If you wish I will dig up what I can find.-User:Rabbis May 5, 2005
  • Keep. I THINK THAT THE ARTICLES ABOUT L.E.KEPECS SHOULD STAY, BECAUSE HE DESIGNED A SPECIAL AND ORIGINAL MEZUZAH, ONE OF A KIND, FOR POPE JOHN PAUL. THE POPE ACKNOWLEDGED AND THANKED CANTOR KEPECS FOR HIS GIFT IN A LETTER. CANTOR KEPECS TRIP TO THE VATICAN TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER CANTORS AND RABBIS WAS THE FIRST ONE EVER IN HISTORY AND THE FIRST EVER GIVEN AUDIENCE BY A SITTING POPE TO JEWISH CLERGY. THIS WAS A HISTORICAL MOMENT AND A LOT WAS ACCOMPLISHED. THIS WAS AN HISTORICAL EVENT THAT HISTORY WILL REMEMBER FOREVER. -User:MISSTY MAY 5,2005
  • Above is an anon vote from User:205.188.116.73, contributions. No registered user MISSTY or Missty has made any contributions to Wikipedia. Samaritan 15:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There is nothing whatsoever in this disjointed rambling diatribe that makes a coherent argument for the enclopedæicity of the article in question. The fact that the "Keep" votes all seem to be User:Merlinzor or sockpuppets is rather revealing that this entire thing is the result of possibly only a single user's unnoteworthy and eccentric POV. The pope and/or the pope's office distribute tens, even hundreds of letters every single day. Getting a letter from the pope does not make a person worthy of an article in wikipedia. The claim that this is the first ever audience given by a sitting pope to members of the "Jewish clergy" is patently false. That notwithstanding, even if it was a historical moment (which remains to be seen) and a lot was accomplished (which is doubtful) and that the event will be remembered forever (is that a prophecy?), that information is relevant to Jewish-Christian relations, and does not make any difference with respect to whether or not this guy is notable, nor whether or not this article is encyclopedia material or ever can be. Tomer TALK 15:42, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • You are supposed to be a source of information, not present biased viewpoints, as I have read some of your various unintelligent comments regarding Rabbis and Cantors. You should not render decisions of elimination based on assumptions as to who is commenting, or if the article doesn't "do it for you" and my rendering is that it is apparent to me that you don't know Rabbis nor Cantors. I am an ordained Rabbi. Wikipedia is free for all to share the information. I am a user of Wikipedia, as I've done much research with Wkipedia, and I find this article about Kepecs beneficial, as do my colleages. I care what happens to this article. The event with the Pope was an event that happened whether you like it or not and an important one at that. It wasn't just "members of the Jewish clergy". It was 141 Jewish clergymen - unprecedented in history, and the Pope's final meeting. What does it hurt you to keep the article? Why should it bother you sooo much? There are a lot of people who DO care about keeping it. -User:Rabbis May 5, 2005
  • Wikipedia's purpose is spelled out, as are its guidelines, elsewhere. This article violates a number of them, as do your comments against wikipedians. In cyberspace, your claim that you are a rabbi is unverifiable, but we are constrained as wikipedians to assume good faith. That constraint, however, has limitations. You are, it is true, free to share information. You are not, however, free to turn the Wikipedia project into a platform for promoting your personal views. I'm sure I care about what happens to this article just as much if not more than you do, so that statement on your part is something of a non-sequitur. As for the number of people who do care about keeping this article, the numbers just don't show it. Thus far, the only people who have registered that view, if they're really not all different personalities of the same anonymous user who's been trying to screw this "information" into every conceivably remotely related article, seem to be sharing a single computer. Tomer TALK 20:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • An emphaticKeep. My name is Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck, President of the Jewish Ministers Cantors Association of America. I led the delegation of cantors - one of the 13 cantors who were selected to sing for the Pope on 1/18/05. It was a monumental event unprecedented in Judeo-Christian history. Rev. Cantor Kepecs gave the Pope a mezuzah that he created for that purpose - to show that the Jewish people really want to have reconciliation with the Catholic church. The Pope very much wanted this meeting. Being the President of the oldest Cantorial organization (dating back to 1896)who had such illustrious members as Cantor Yossele Rosenblatt, Ben Zion Kapov Kagan, Chaskele Ritter, David Koussevitzky, Moshe Koussevitzky, Berele Chagy, Israel Alter, Mordechai Hershman, Adolf Katchko, Leib Glantz, Alter Yechiel Karniol, Zavel Kwartin, Samuel Malavsky, Shlomo Mendel, Yeshia Meissels Pierre Pinchik and many others, I feel in my expertise that Cantor Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs is more than a noteworthy cantor, he is an exceptional Cantor and artist, who deserves a page in your encyclopedia. I can only assume that those who wish to remove mention of Cantor Kepecs in this forum are either ill-informed or have other agendas which are not in keeping with the historical and informative nature of this forum.-Rev. Cantor Victor I Beck, President JMCA May 5, 2005
  • Note: User 162.83.159.221's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • For the record, the many illustrious cantors mentioned above were real people. DS 13:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Dear Samaritan, I trust as your name implies, that you are a good samaritan. Please do not ascribe any lesser motivations to me than you do for yourself. My entire life and the lives of those with whom I associate, are dedicated to attending to the needs and aspirations of both the Jewish community, and the world community at large. Endemic to this work, is a constant striving to uphold the fundemental building blocks of a civilized society. In the Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the fathers) there is a statement that the world rests on 3 things, on study of Torah, prayer worship, and on acts of loving kindness. Endemic to those 3 principals is a constant striving for truth and accuracy. I invite you to join me in this endeavor. -Rev. Cantor Victor I. Beck, President JMCA 5/5/05
  • I assume the "Rev. Cantor" means "principles". Maybe he should trade the title in for another box of crackerjacks and a better education. If he were to do so, he'd eventually learn that the glorification of "the good Samaritan" is Christian propaganda. Tomer TALK 21:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to decreasingly humbly point out that "Reverend Cantor Beck"'s "contribution" here, quite clearly spells out that this article is, as has been pointed out previously, nothing more than self-promotion. I also think it's interesting that the Jewish Ministers Cantors Association of America website is hmmm...Missing in action. A google search for "Reverend Cantor" turns up exactly 5 distinct hits, only 4 of which are actually using "reverend cantor" as a title, two of which clarify that this is a title of sorts bestowed by the Cantorial Associaton of America, not the JMCAA. Another of them is a somewhat sideways joke about a blogger's grandfather, and the other is, Lo and behold, an almost verbatim copycat of the stuff that this anonymous editor keeps trying to inject into wikipedia. Wanna see? Check it out here: [1]. How do you spell "AGENDA"? So then, I decided, why don't I go see what I can find on Victor I. Beck. So, I looked him up, and guess what I found? 13 relevant google hits. About half of which identify him as "Victor I. Beck" and the rest as "Cantor Victor I. Beck". That's right, to my utter lack of shock, there were no "Reverend Cantor Victor I. Beck"s. So then I said me, "How about just plain Victor Beck?" So I did that search. Predictably, this turned up a significantly greater number of hits. I paged through them, and found out that there are a number of people with the names Victor and Beck in various combinations with other names, but still no Reverend Cantors Beck. So, now I'm thinking perhaps what I should do is email Cantor Victor I. Beck, at cantorbeck@cantorbeck.com, an email address I feel comfortable publishing, since it appears here: [2]...and ask him whether or not he's had free time lately to write disrespectful notes on Wikipedia talkpages. Now that I know he's a part-time resident of Phoenix, perhaps what I should do is head over to whitepages.com and see whether or not I can get his phone number. That might be quicker... Tomer TALK 21:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • That other website has the same text because it's a mirror of an older version of the Wikipedia article into which this had been inserted. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • UPDATE! I went and visited Cantor Victor I. Beck's website, [3], which is overloaded with java and winmedia crap, but my critique of the bad webdesign isn't really the important point here: NOWHERE on that site, does it anywhere say "REVEREND CANTOR". Tomer TALK 21:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see the "special cantorial robes and hat" either, unless that tuxedo and kippah count. Jayjg (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What nonsense. Do you hear what you actually sound like? -Merlin 6 May 2005
  • Keep. KEEP, KEEP, KEEP------ Until this article came around I never knew how important Cantor's were in the comunity. I now have a greater appreciation for cantor's world wide, it takes a lot of studying and is hard work. Article should stay... More should be added as well, so there can be a greater understanding for what these men really do. The fact that he gave the pope a MEZUZAH is note worthy in and of itself. The page should stay NO QUESTIONS ASKED!!!!!.- MW
  • Above vote is from User:Melbug, and their first and so far only contributions are to this VfD page. Samaritan 18:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)/
  • Keep HIS CREDITS HAVE EARNED HIM THIS ARTICLE. - DONALD TRUMP MAY 11, 2005
  • Keep. I do think Cantor Kepecs should have an article, but I wish there was a way to punish the many silly people who have invaded Wikipedia just for the sake of keeping this page here. My vote with change to Delete if any further capitalised entries are made by anonymous/brand new accounts. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. If he needs so many sockpuppets to mitigate his notability he cannot be notable. JFW | T@lk 12:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I resent being called that. I worked hard to try to edit articles, and to add information. That was not a fair remark.-Victor 5/6/05
      • Very unfair, but not all information belongs on Wikipedia. That is the point in VFD. Wikipedia relies on community opinion, rather than experts, to determine whether an article is worth keeping. JFW | T@lk 09:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why one would choose to change his vote based on other peoples votes. -Merlin 8 May 2005
      • It was a deterrent. I warned you all. JFW | T@lk 21:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. His notability has been established. -Arthur May 11, 2005
  • Note: User:162.83.130.189's first edit. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sockpuppet overload. RickK 21:59, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kepec's notability has been more than sufficiently established. He is a leader in his field. The papal audience is notable on its own, of course, but so is the good Cantor. Perhaps you would be more impressed if he tried out for American Idol. -- As to the desire to punish silly people, we are here to edit, not to attack people. Dystopos 04:02, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • In the interest of developing a community consensus on this issue, the community should take any evidence presented by those outside the community under consideration but is not obligated to be swayed by opinions from outside the community. Very little evidence of Kepecs' notability has been forthcoming. I had voted to keep the article because I do not consider notability to be a very useful criterion by itself. Other criteria such as NPOV and self-promotion seem to be adequate for this case. Although I welcome any actual evidence, at this point it seems I have no choice but to change my vote. I vote to merge any useful information into other articles. The interesting life of a cantor can be detailed in a more generic article. If the presentation of the mazuzah is significant, other places can be found for that bit of information as well. Dystopos 21:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No question about it in my mind. The artform of singing, as well as graphic lyricism, is shown in this man. He's a hero to other singers. Peter Ellis 05:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think everything I can say has been said already re: Cantor Kepecs. I've tried editing some of the articles myself at Wikipedia (where anyone can edit). However I have found that it is difficult to keep the edits in, as others who may know less about certain matters, take them out. I've always been from the school that an article is written by someone, and can be edited by others for punctuation, phrasing, and sentence structure, but what you are looking to do is completely remove others works, who have spent their time researching people, events, concepts, intellectual ideas etc. Morally, this is wrong. On another note, I feel that Wikipedia is an excellent source of information to the general public, and all of you have done quite well, but just because you have amassed a lot of knowledge editing in certain areas, nobody knows it all. Sometimes an expert in a field may "pop in" to see what you are doing. He may want to make corrections, or add to a listing, based on his expertise - so let him. -Victor 5/6/05
  • Note: Second "Keep" vote by this editor; see above.Jayjg (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Hazzan Beck, the problem is that Wikipedia is not vandalism-proof; rather, it is vandalism-resistant, and as a result of this, we can be quite ardent in demanding proof of an article's validity. "If this Hazzan Kepecs is so notable", we say to ourselves, "should not his name have been mentioned by more people in more places? Could this not be a vanity article, such as children and the mad make to promote themselves, or a friendship article, like the well-meaning make to promote their friends?" We look at the claims made in an article, and if they do not seem to match what we find in other places, we become wary of fraud - because fraud is sadly not absent from Wikipedia. Some do it out of malicious glee in their vandalism, others do it to further their argument that Wikipedia is inherently valueless... please do not assume that we have agendas other than trying to make this the best resource that we can. All are welcome to contribute if they do so properly. If someone contributes to one of these debates, and he has never contributed to Wikipedia before, then once more we become suspicious. "Could this not,", we say to ourselves, "be merely a friend or relative of the article's creator, arguing on his behalf not out of any inherent value in the article, but merely out of personal loyalty or friendship?" After all, a ten-year-old can create an article claiming that he is the strongest and fastest boy in all his school and that he will surely be President one day, and when we recommend that his article be deleted immediately as nonsense, his six best friends can instantly protest that he IS the strongest and fastest boy in all his school, and that he WILL surely be President one day, and everyone deserves the chance to know about him. They can even claim that they do not know him, but that his article has convinced them. If such a statement in a deletion debate is someone's first and only contribution to Wikipedia, then we consider it as being of lesser merit than the same statement from someone who has participated for months. Even if someone signs their statements, we cannot know that they are who they claim to be - but if they register an account (and why not; it's free, after all), then their every contribution to Wikipedia is recorded and made available to all, and we can then judge their worth. If someone makes an account, and uses it to insert the word "poop" into the name of every member of Congress, then we know to discount their statements. If someone makes an account, and uses it to create many exquisitely detailed but false articles about wars that never happened between nations that never existed, then we know to discount their statements. If someone makes an account, and uses it to say that such-and-such an article must not be deleted - and does nothing else - then how are we to know whether they are trustworthy? The answer is that we cannot. I can claim to be a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Catholic, a man, a woman, an exceptionally bright child, a chemist, a rabbi, a surgeon, a pilot, a soldier, a tailor, a chef, a lawyer, black, white, or jaundiced from gradual liver failure, but these cannot be proven and are not relevant to the trustworthiness of my statements in these debates. What is relevant is that I am the Wikipedia contributor with the username DragonflySixtyseven, and every one of my contributions can be examined for value.

I hope that I have made my point clear to Hazzan Beck and to the others who support this article but have not yet proven themselves.

Incidentally, I vote weak keep DS 13:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

  • delete: insignificant and agrandized writing. Kingturtle 06:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, vanity. —Lowellian (talk) 08:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:06, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm striking my vote to abstain. It seems that with the vast ranks of sock warriors in support, my own vote is far less neccessary. I want to vote keep; I might be persuaded to change it back with less enthusiastic hosiery, and more proof. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonnotable, vanity. --Angr/comhrá 13:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because I'd rather have an article on a person who has made achievements in life then half the articles we have which are on roads, towns, schools, pokemon, TV shows etc. Just because someone is not that noted on the net (google) does not mean they are not worthy of an article if in "the real world" they are notable. There may be people who are interested in this person, and I don't see the harm in keeping this article when there are many more articles less deserving. --Silversmith 19:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

My dear friends, one of my colleagues and Rabbinic students (I teach certain topics) made mention to me a few days ago that a listing about me appeared in Wikipedia. I was overwhelmed and honored to learn of this. Today, I was curious to see this listing first hand. I read everything that was discussed about me and was amazed and flattered by many of your remarks. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am just a simple Reverend Cantor - one who serves G-d, and the Jewish community. I try to do good, to sanctify G-d's name, such as when those who are less fortunate than I need help, I would help them in whatever ways I could. I feel this is a glorification of G-d's holy name. The trip to greet the Pope, I felt was also a sanctification of G-d. The fact that we were given the opportunity to offer blessings to him because of all the good that he did for the Jews, from the Holocaust era until his death, was so very important. Pope John Paul II was a righteous gentile, always looking to do good. He was an exceptional man of peace. We all wanted to recognize this. We were told by the Vatican, that we were the only "People" to ever say "thank you" to a Pope. I am an average person. I feel my voice is average, my art is average, my grades in school were only a "B". My life has not really been all that interesting. You all have done such a superb job on your works at Wikipedia, and you all are to be commended for your research efforts, "Yasher Koach." You did such great research on me, that you even discovered my old screenname that I used to use. My breath is taken away. I'm so flattered that I have such a following, I never knew it. I feel, however, that perhaps I am unworthy of the great honor bestowed upon me of having a page in your excellent encyclopedia. I am really not a "great" person. Perhaps my page should be reserved for someone of much greater worth than I, for someone of major importance. I applaud all your efforts. Thank you for thinking of me. May you all be successful in your quest for truth. May G-d bless you all. -Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs 9 May, 2005 12:55

Perhaps I'm misreading what you wrote, but are you voting to delete then? Tomer TALK 19:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fascinating character of international fame, emminent in several ways. Not even borderline IMO. Andrewa 16:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
    • How can a guy who gets no Google hits have "international fame"? Jayjg (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
      • You do realise there was a time before the internet? Google is not the be all and end all.--Silversmith 09:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I realize that, but the internet has been around for a looong time now, and anyone of "international fame" has been mentioned in many different places on it. And Google is not the "be all and end all", but anyone of "international fame" would have at least a few Google hits. He gets just one non-Wikipedia Yahoo hit as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Very simply: It just means that nobody who knows about him has written a web page, other than this one. No change of vote. Andrewa 13:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh, it means a lot more; it means that no-one has bothered to write anything much about him anywhere significant. Jayjg (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because this discussion is getting overly long. Radiant_* 09:45, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sometimes I think that we should put a word count limit on valid votes, and ignore all those over 60 words say (or pick any other figure). I doubt such a policy would actually change any decisions; If you can't put your case into a neat, short sentence, then probably you either don't understand it, or you do understand it and know it isn't very good! No change of vote (and besides, I'm over 60 words already). Andrewa 13:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. WOW!!!! What an unbelievable man of character. No question in my mind, he's tops in his field, respected by his own colleagues, & the Jewish community at large. There is an "emminence" to this man. I'm not an editor, just a user, but I am very impressed with Kepecs. -Stephen May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Another anonymous editor with almost no edits, all to articles related to this, and all having the exact same viewpoint as the previous anonymous editors. Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An inspiration to many. Very worthy. -Professor Kaufman May 10, 2005
  • Note: Another anonymous editor with almost no edits, all to articles related to this, and all having the exact same viewpoint as the previous anonymous editors. Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subject of the article has written to comment on his own lack of encyclopaedic notability. However, he may very well become notable in the future (heck, he's only 35 now and has already met the Pope)... we shall see. -- BDAbramson thimk 19:36, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
    • I rather doubt the veracity of the claim that the comment was actually made by the person purporting to have made it. That notwithstanding, if you read what that person wrote, it sounds very much to me like the author is saying "it's a nice gesture, but insufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the wikipedia". Tomer TALK 19:55, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I rather doubt it as well. Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT : It sounds to me that the subject of this article is extremely humble. Others who apparently have heard him, think very highly of him in the singing world, as do his colleagues such as Cantor Beck and various Rabbis. This is the mark of a special person indeed. He's not full of himself, and not looking to aggrandize himself. The word that comes to mind was mentioned by a couple of you - an "emminence."- Victor 5/10/05
    • What, exactly, does this comment have to do with the subject here (the subject/article's noteworthiness, in case you've forgotten)? Tomer TALK 21:03, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • The words that come to my mind are "multiple sockpuppets playing mind games". Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • To me this sounds like a communist trial - guilty until proven innocent. Does it not? -Victor 5/10/05
  • No, it doesn't. Incidentally, I think what you mean is "a drumhead", or perhaps even "a Cardassian trial", not a "communist trial"...your use of that phrase, followed by the "guilty until proven innocent" demonstrates ignorance and a political POV, and your oblique characterization of those who disagree with you as "communists" does nothing to improve your credibility. ... Nor, might I add, does the fact that the only two people (not "a couple of you") who have used the word "emminence" (sic) are you and another anonymous coward, "Stephen May"...neither of whom appear to be able to spell particularly well. Interesting, however, that you should both happen misspell the same word exactly the same way. Tomer TALK 22:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Andrewa also used it. I just copied that spelling without looking it up. -Victor 5/10/05
Oh my. Another of your sock puppets who can't spell. How ever did I fail to catch it? Tomer TALK 23:06, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Whatever you call it, Wikipedia is not a government. Yes, guilty until proven innocent. It's not up to us to try to clean up your article in order to make it useful, it's up to the original poster and subsequent editors to write it so that it explains what makes the person notable. So far, no one has succeeded. RickK 23:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

How do you want me to fix it? Tell me how, and I will. It's a shame to lose the article.-Victor 5/10/05

I suggest first removing all unverifiable claims and opinion (aggrandizement, as it has been called here). Strive for accuracy and objectivity. Add references (books, news articles, etc) as much as possible. If that can be done, then most of the above discussion of notability is moot. The question of notability is up in the air and needs to be satisfied by matters of fact rather than testimonials. Dystopos 00:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

All right. Specifically which facts in the article are in question. Is it the Pope visit? There is a newspaper article in the discussion section. I'm sure there are more, if we really look. The wall that was built appeared in the Newtown Bee (in discussion section)- the arts newspaper that goes all around the world to every gallery and auction house. Very prestigious, and very difficult to get into. There's The Jewish Press article on him. We can call Yeshiva University to find out if he actually got degrees there. That he sings internationally, that has been proven from the Rome article. There may be more articles, I would have to research it. Tell me what else you need me to find. I'll do what I can. -Victor 5/10/05

  • Maybe all your friends can help you. Gosh, with 5 or 6 of you working on it together, it should take no time at all, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • That's not nice. I'm trying to be constructive here. There are articles that appear in hard copy which are not accessible through the internet. Example Newtown Bee.-Victor.
  • Delete. Smells like a massive vanity attack: the aggrandizing, lack of documentation (a press release in a weekly newspaper giveaway section?) and verifiability, and an army of new users who all write in exactly the same style? Rabbi "Beck", this is really unbecoming of you. --Calton | Talk 05:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I can only comment on myself. I am not Cantor Beck, nor am I Merlin, though I do know the latter well. I do not know any of these other posters though. -Victor 5/11/05

Victor, forget it your wasting your breath. I found 2 more articles which I posted in "discussion." So now there are 5 newspaper articles about him, and I'm sure I can find more. -Merlin May 11, 2005

I may have been able to track one down also. -Victor 5/11/05
I posted some also. -Rabbis 11 May 2005.
  • Keep.- GETALIFE mAy 11,2005
  • Note: Vote by User:64.12.116.196, an anonymous AOL proxy. Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. For those attempting to distill a consensus from all this blabbering, observe that, although an annoyance on this page, sockpuppetry should not reflect on the status of the article itself. I'm inclined to think that the Cantor does merit an article, at least as much as any minor James Bond character or American Idol finalist. It should be edited to remove matters of opinion and exaggeration and monitored for recurrences of vanity. Dystopos 20:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I agree with you. Unfortunately, that would leave the article with less than 1/4 of its current content. Tomer TALK 21:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • Further comment. I've been trying to clean up the article and I think I just have to give up on this. Kepecs seems to be a promising tenor in the Cantorial community and was priveleged to have been invited with other cantors to a papal audience. His major artwork - a decorative fundraising wall at a Cantorial seminary - is made of carved and painted foam. The multiple newspaper clippings, improperly scanned and uploaded, establish nothing beyond his existence as a performer. I don't know if the article can be cleaned up enough to be neutral. Dystopos 21:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I highly recommend anyone interested in this discussion also read Talk:Lawrence Eliezer Kepecs, which is IMO where most of the above discussion belongs too. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the vote for this rambling VfD is ever tallied and the article deleted, I would like to request that, if the sock-puppet master who has fought so hard for its retention wants, that s/he be permitted to have the article as it stands prior to deletion. If s/he can turn it into a worthwhile article in the next couple months, as well as learn a bit more about the Wikipedia, like such fundamental concepts for example as how to create an account, then perhaps this kind of nonsense can be avoided, at least with this editor, in the future. Tomer TALK 02:27, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 02:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Lawrence_Eliezer_Kepecs_1fa3.html"