Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Sokolovsky (2 nomination)

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 - There is a consensus that this article should be deleted, although there are concerns raised as to WP:BIO. Although he has two articles about him, he also does not appear to meet two other points in WP:BIO - "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" - At this time he has generated a stir amongst the establishment, but there is no indication that this would pass the 10 year test, or anything else. Also, because the subject is a rabbi and religious figure, it is analogous to a religious academic - a look at WP:PROF version of the biography guideline shows that he is a long way from a religious equivalent of being a academically/theologically respected scholar in any sense.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ariel Sokolovsky

Ariel Sokolovsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

NN "rabbi". Made a sensational blog, got covered by Haaretz as a freak. Precisely one newspaper article to his name. Fails the multiple non-trivial coverage test. If we honor this moronic individual with NOTABILITY, we will give him exactly what he wants - publicity. Delete. (But wait - there's more! - User:Ariel Sokolovsky) - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a 2nd AfD. The previous one was almost two years ago and resulted in deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ariel Sokolovsky. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I removed the speedy tag a few minutes ago and was about to start this AfD, but Tragic Baboon beat me too it. There is no evidence that the subject merits inclusion for his views or for spreading said views. Limited non-trivial refs, too. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. does not fit the criteria of WP:BIO. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the individual has been the subject of a number of major articles including in the Forward and in Israel's premier daily Haaretz. He has become much more notable since the last AfD, and has a major presence on line. He is very well known for his views in orthodox Jewish circles and has recently been the subject of a major controversy within the Chabad movement. As perhaps the most extreme example of Chabad Messianism he merits an article here. David Spart 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I also deplore the gratuitios personal attack bu the instigator of this AfD. Refering to the subject as a moronic individual, is the shoddiest violation of NPOV I have ever seen. And who cares if he gets what he wants - that is not at issue here. David Spart 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Lookit, I am not editing. I wouldn't be able to write an NPOV article about this individual, for whom I have strong unprintable feelings. I admit to POV. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not fit central criterion at WP:BIO. One article doth not notable make, especially when the BULK of the article is not about Sokolovsky, but the Lubavitcher Rebbe himself. Avi 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this 2nd reincarnation. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Per Tragic. Shlomke 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete--but if he does get picked up by more sources, we'll have to let the article in.DGG 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article is about obscure weirdo. While it is definitely not providing a platform, he just isn't notable. The Behnam 05:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete until such time as he is named the next Lubavitcher Rebbe. This is WP:NN at its height. IZAK 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep We should be documenting crazy religious leaders and put them in a category together. Btw, passes WP:BIO due to a second source in google archive [1] and I'm quite sure I could find more if put a few more minutes into the effort. John Vandenberg 08:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This mentions him in passing so it wouldn't really count. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me?? This is the full text of that article: [2]. The only way you could have thought that the article contained only a passing mention is if you either did not read it, or completely had no WP:FAITH in the fact that I had read the full text. The subject of this Afd is a critical of the theme of that article, as the reporter could not have chosen anyone at random to fill his shoes. Three paragraphs are focused on the man with two non-trivial quotes. As a result, I dont think the mention can be called trivial, which is the way WP:N is framed. That said, the notion of non-trivial is IMO one of the most subjective part of the main notability criteria, so its hard to argue either way on borderline cases. But I dont see how this is a borderline case. John Vandenberg 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the focus of this 48 paragraph article is not about him, rather it quotes Sokolovsky over 3 paragraphs as saying that the rebbe is alive because he is a Tzadik... This quote from him, in my humble opinion does not qualify as a newspaper article about someone that makes them notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
If this article was in isolation, I would agree it isnt enough. But there are other sources as well, and if use this article as an example, he is being used as a source along side a crowd of other notable people. Four people are quoted in the article (in order of the size of the quotes):
  • Rabbi David Berger (professor), a history professor at Brooklyn College
  • Rabbi Ariel Sokolovsky
  • Michael Rosenthal, a 24-year-old Lubavitcher who works for the emissary in Great Neck, in an interview outside.
  • one anti-messianist not named
In addition, three other people are mentioned by name:
The way I read it was that the author of the article included Sokolovsky because he considered it worth of note. John Vandenberg 09:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well done to Jayvdb for finding that source, there are probably more too as he said. While this guy is insane, he now passes WP:BIO and taking into account his broad infamy an article on him is now a must. He passed WP:BIO - case settled, period, end of story, life is too short. Congratulations Rabbi Sokolovsky, you are now a notable crank. juicifer 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Bondego 09:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable kook. I'm happy that the rest of Chabad has loudly said that he's a kook, but that doesn't make him less notable for saying this, and the sources given in this AfD demonstrate notability. JoshuaZ 02:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a good idea to keep a wikipedic reference of this person as long as the references have veracity. James Gosnell 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. does not fit the criteria of WP:BIO. Yehoishophot Oliver 22:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment So how do the two sources given, one in the article and on from the Jewish Week mentioned above not fulfil the primary notability criterion? JoshuaZ 03:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn failure of WP:BIO, TewfikTalk 03:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment So how do the two sources given, one in the article and on from the Jewish Week mentioned above not fulfil the primary notability criterion? JoshuaZ 03:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Further comment there are actually three notable sources now on the page, two seperate pieces in the Jewish Week and one in Haaretz. Closing admin please note the religious fervour that is leading good editors to vote to delete an article that passed WP:BIO. David Spart 08:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

'* Keep. It is essential for students of Chabad and of religion and religious history in general to learn about Sokolovsky and his views. Mention of him should not simply be buried in the body of another article. Thank you. Shmarya Rosenberg 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Editor's third edit. JoshuaZ 19:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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.