Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sperber

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 keep. John254 03:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Sperber

Daniel Sperber (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This person is totally not notable either as a rabbi or as a noted scholar. The sole purpose of this article is to use him in order to promote an agenda of {{Jewish feminism}} by User:Shirahadasha the creator of this article who is singularly devoted to promoting one agenda: Getting Orthodox Judaism to change its views and rules regarding the roles of men and women. This article violates WP:NN, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and fails WP:BIO because it's only here to promote the extreme Modern Orthodox views of an editor in violation of WP:COI. IZAK 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • SpeedyStrong Keep. The nominator has failed to substantiate a legitimate criterion for deletion. Disagreement with an article subject's POV is not a basis for deletion. The subject is clearly notable per WP:BIO. The idea that an Israel Prize recipient could be characterized as having no notability as a scholar boggles the imagination. An Israel Prize winner meets WP:BIO as the recipient of a notable award for contributions. See also the list of sources in the article. --Shirahadasha 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
    • Nonsense. Your request for haste only heightens the supicions of your POV agenda. We all know how to use Google, but let's try applying our brains also. So put him in List of Israel Prize winners so what? It's like List of dead Jewish poets which does not make them into decisors of Jewish law! While this man may be a good man, he is just one of tens of millions of professors, hundreds of thousands of minor rabbis through the ages, and tens of thousands of Hebraica and Judaica academics in the world with nice articles about them and with books they may have had published by universities, BUT that would in no way qualify them to become icons or guides for new ways of re-inventing Judaism. What you are saying Shira, is that this man, because he is a professor and a rabbi to boot and has had some of his words printed can now come forth and change Judaism and as you argue in the article that that is his "claim to fame" -- nowhere in Jewish history have academics had ANY standing in the world of Torah study and they have zero significance as innovators of Jewish customs and certainly their opinions mean nothing in Jewish law. So in that regard he is totally not notable. By way of example: The Jews for Jesus can also claim to have WP:RS but that still gives them less than ZERO credibility in the world of Judaism. Wikipedia cannot teach lies it has a responsibilty to facts as well. IZAK 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Changed to Strong Keep (above) because a criterion for deletion, non-notability, has been asserted. --Shirahadasha 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep regardless of any imbalance in the article and the appropriateness of the references the article clearly shows notability and sources. IZAK...you seem to greatly dislike this man which is not a good deletion reason. The pertinent bit of WP:Notability is the phrase A topic is notable if it has sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article.. Seems to clearly pass the line - Peripitus (Talk) 11:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • For the record: I have absolutely nothing against this man at all. This vote is only about the supposed status he has within the world of Judaism, and right now, aside from the propaganda coming from hostile Jewish feminists, it is at about zero. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - long list of references is provided (although more independent third-party sources are needed) and I feel the nominator is acting in bad faith. IMHO you should always avoid attacking the article's author in an AfD - judge the article, not the person. Although I accept that the author is probably trying to promote a POV, the nominator clearly has their own views on this issue as well, and there doesn't seem to be much evidence of neutrality in any of the arguments above, on either side. So I'm unconvinced by the nominator's rationale. Walton monarchist89 12:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, sourced and referenced, should pass WP:PROF with enough space to get an elephant through. Not liking the content of an article is not enough reason to nominate it for AfD Alf photoman 13:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP - with greater presentation of his serious academic work on Talmud and minhag, for which he won the Israel prize. He meets the criteria of a famous academic and he is head of Torah studies at Bar Ilan. A google search shows articles about him and his Talmudic work in newspapers in England, US, FSU, and Israel. --Jayrav 13:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Winning the Israel Prize is not worth a hill of beans in JUDAISM. All sorts of characters get nominated by the SECULAR state of Israel and none of it has any bearing on Judaism. The only reason this article was created and is used is to promote a POV agenda of Jewish feminists, otherwise he would be lost in oblivion -- even with his Israel Prize in hand. If one does not grasp this, then one does not understand the world of Torah and Talmud where the notion of "giving" or "getting" a "prize" would be regarded as a complete joke. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the current section "References" should rather be titled "Publications". So actually adding some references in the sense of articles about him and his work would be helpful. --Tikiwont 14:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Anyone who wins the Israel Prize is automatically notable. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not have time to add to the article this week- but there are important statements on the web from him, as a BIU figure, on human rights, stem cell reserach, ecology, art, and education. The feminism is just a small part of his scholarly and public life. --Jayrav 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sure, lots of people write about lots of things, but he is just not notable in the world of Torah scholarship. Don't let the web fool you as it can dish up "sources" about publicity hounds (or those who wish to stoke up publicity about issues, and note that he is quoted on all sorts of "hot button" topics) but true Torah scholars, notable in the true sense may not be known to the world at large. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as winner of the Israel Prize and publisher of over a dozen books. User:IZAK, please refrain from ad hominem arguments and address the merits (or lack thereof) of the article itself. As for the point above about "credibility", that is your subjective determination. The abundance of published coverage is all that is required for WP:BIO. -- Black Falcon 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • This man is simply not notable in the world of Judaism, something you do not seem to understand. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per above, strong enough to overcome any qualms about citing this as a bad faith nomination. Nom's soapbox would better be employed in a discussion forum where he can push to his heart's content his POV about what does or doesn't constitute "proper" Judaism. Even were nom's insults accurate (which I don't myself swallow on faith), the factual accuracy of a subject's philosophy has zero bearing on his suitability for a Wikipedia article. Nom plainly mistakes his own (quite subjective) assessment of the subject as a Torah scholar for a Wikipedia official guideline. RGTraynor 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia cannot "manufacture" definitions of what constitutes a Torah scholar because Wikipedia is obliged to report reality and not lies. What do you know of Torah scholarship sir? IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as above. To the nom, if you feel that your worldview is not inadequately represented, by all means write encyclopaedic articles on topics close to your heart and work towards WP:NPOV on articles that aim to be broad, but for heavens sake, do not attempt to delete articles about alternative worldviews. John Vandenberg 12:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The subject is just not notable and is unknown in the world of Judaism, right, left, or center. IZAK 07:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • IZAK, you have completely missed the point here. This person doesnt need to be notable in the field of Judaism as defined by people within Judaism or by any other group of people. He is considered notable for the purposes of this discussion because he meets Wikipedia's general criteria for "notability". Those criteria dont require that the fellow is knowledgeable, respected, or even sane. They are just criteria for acceptance into the annals of Wikipedia. John Vandenberg 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • John: I get the point very well. To use a Bushism, don't "misunderestimate" me. It's pretty obvious for those who have tracked this subject for a while now that the only reason that User:Shirahadasha created the article about this guy in the first place is because she wanted to stick in the following paragraph in the article: "His studies include examination of halakhic and minhagic foundations of the role of women in Judaism. He has been a participant in conferences of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance" and then use him as a Judaic "authority" for "Jewish feminism" and all the other stuff that flows from that on Wikipedia. To point out this man's worthless credentials in the world of serious Torah scholarship is key to understanding that neither he, nor User:Shirahadasha should bend Wikipedia to their POV agenda of furthering Jewish feminism alone. Let them do it on its own merits, if it has any, but to create such artificial "props" flies in the face of the very subject it puports to revolve around, mainly Judaism, and in the world of Judaism this man is entirely not notable and thus should not have his own Wikipedia article, speaking objectively. Wikipedia is not a medium to spread neologisms and this guy is only on Wikipedia in order to spread the neologism known as "Jewish feminism" which is neither "Jewish" nor connected to classical Judaism -- it's just a late twentieth century invention that some now wish to foist on Judaism, similar to a zillion other social issues and phenomena that have zilch to do with Jews, Judaism, or what being Jewish truly means. IZAK 11:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as with the two other scholars. Nominating the three of them together makes it obvious that it was not a good faith nomination for lack of notability The assertion that as there were no universities in talmudic times, university teachers cannot be considered qualified as religious scholars is rather remarkable. So is the assertion that a scholar would have to revolutionize the religion to be considered sufficiently notable, especially as I suspect the nom would have regarded any such innovation as unqualified because non-traditional. DGG 01:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment In fairness to User:IZAK, I would actually agree that religious/rabbinic scholarship and academic scholarship can be regarded as somewhat different fields, and it is definitely possible to be notable in one but not the other. Tova Hartman's notability is exclusively as an academic and an activist -- no-one's claiming she's a notable religious scholar in the rabbinic-studies sense. Mendel Shapiro's claim to notability is as a religious scholar plus his press coverage -- he doesn't have much notability as an academic. Daniel Sperber has some notability in both worlds. His notability in the academic world is especially clear, so discussion has focused on that area simply because it's most obvious. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Shira, now can you imagine if you really made it clear to the world that being educated in Judaism at university still leaves one a total am ha'aretz in Torah Judaism. IZAK 07:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that your general argument is that the fellow is an ignoramus because he cant provide a set of begats that stretches back to Abraham. Your assertion that an academic cant understand Judaism would only make this fellow more notable for attempting it. John Vandenberg 08:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As the Torah Judaism article indicates, the term is generally associated with Haredi Judaism. All of these individuals have notability, if any, only in the world of Modern Orthodox Judaism, academia, or the general media. No-one is claiming that they have any notability in the Haredi world or that this world regards them as reliable scholars. Hope this helps. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, no, he is not an ignoramus (about Judaism), it's the majority of people reading and commenting on the article about him, to be quite blunt. I was encouraging Shira to do a public service on Wikipedia by not constantly leading people on who do not have the required backround to fathom who and what does and does not count in the world of Judaism. By way of analogy, if you had a bunch of shoemakers who knew nothing about serious music vote on the merits of a whether someone should be called a notable musician, and then you told the shoemakers that the musician in question was also a professor, and then the shoemakers go ahead and nod their heads and go kluk kluk and mutter that presumably the musician must be notable because he is a professor and got a prize from some banana republic and that ergo he must be a notable musician -- would be pathetic, ludicrous, and comical, and that is exactly what is happening here, if you see what I mean. P.S. Your comment about "begats" only proves my point, so watch how you phrase things, 'cause your slip is showing... IZAK 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Your insinuation that only people with the "proper" background ought to comment on AfDs is what is ludicrous. Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, not an in-depth scholarly tome only permitted to the properly screened cognoscenti. As such, the verification standards are readily grasped by all. If you cannot defend (or refute) the notability of a subject to the satisfaction of the laymen who use this encyclopedia, perhaps it should be left to someone more qualified or articulate than yourself. (Come to that, I rather doubt that you were required to prove your Judaic knowledge to a board of Torah scholars before you were permitted to make related Wikipedia edits.) RGTraynor 16:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
RGTraynor, you are also missing my point. One can only judge an editor by his or her proven track record on Wikipedia. Noone has to go in front of any boards for anything to write in Wikipedia. But, if say, one was to pop into subjects on Wikipedia one knew little or nothing about and then on the basis of one's ignorance of the subject make misinformed statements or edits, as evidenced by what one writes and the way that one writes it, and if one then adds insult to injury by sitting in judgment deciding on the validity and notability of that subject (when it may be totally bogus and useless as understood by experts in that field -- not just on Wikipedia) then one would surely make a laughing stock out of oneself, or worse. Now, back to this subject of Daniel Sperber. He was only dredged up and written up by User:Shirahadasha to promote a POV "Jewish feminist" agenda because on his own merits Daniel Sperber, while being a very learned man, is in no way shape size or form recognized or regarded as an authority in Jewish law and is therefore totally not notable as a rabbi. Many rabbis have taught at universities over the years, and that does not make them notable. The question about the Israel Prize is a side point and misses the mark of what is happening here, it's a decoy if you will to avoid facing the real tough questions here, and it has no bearing on his standing as a rabbi since rabbis are not "measured" by the "prizes" they receive from secular governments or from anyone. IZAK 08:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not "missing" your point; your points are quite obvious and easy to grasp. Where you are going wrong is in indulging in the most common error of any debater: presuming that failure to agree with you can only stem from a lack of understanding. As it stands, you are now stridently maintaining your POV against unanimous opposition. Whether or not you believe yourself to be the ultimate arbiter of Judaism on Wikipedia, you've failed to convince a single other editor of the merits of your position. You've certainly convinced me that your opposition is founded far more in attacking Shirahadasha than in the actual merits of this article. RGTraynor 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Waxing lyrical about the injustices of this man being considered notable DOES NOT HELP. Read "notability" and find an argument to delete on that basis. No other basis for deletion is appropriate here. AFAICS nobody here has an agenda except yourself, as everyone else has been determining whether the person meets the appropriate and simple criteria in "WP:N". Go read WP:N! Please note that nobody has claimed he is a notable rabbi ... everyone else is merely deciding whether he is a notable person based on the criteria set forth in WP:N. The consensus by the comments on this Afd is that he meets those criteria due to multiple media references; thems the breaks. As far as I can see, the only reasonable logic that can be used to promote this articles deletion (based on WP:N) is if the sources that have been provided to date do not provide sufficient evidence that he received the Israel Prize in 1997. i.e. you dont believe the article is factual. John Vandenberg 21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you caught on more quickly than I did that what IZAK's harping on isn't that the fellow's not notable, but that he's not notable in the field of Judaism. Demonstrably the Israeli government disagrees (and I rather consider the Israeli government a much more authoritative source than a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor), but it's all irrelevant as hell. Wikipedia'd be a pretty empty encyclopedia if articles needed to be vetted under WP:N for their specific importance to the Jewish faith. There's no doubt some message board somewhere where IZAK can more properly debate the subject's credentials, and this discussion should go there. RGTraynor 01:51, 24 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.