Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gil Student (2nd 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 keep; it would take more rogueness than I have to kill this one. east.718 at 10:47, November 28, 2007

[edit] Gil Student

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gil Student Articles for deletion/Gil Student (2nd nomination)
Gil Student (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject of the article is not notable (he has a blog, and that's about it). The page is a vanity piece. It has already been nominated, and the result was deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gil_Student Meshulam (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be pointed out that this fellow has 30,000 Ghits + at 18 notable references in the Google News archive. [1]Lobojo (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: As the consensus for this article has already been made known, via 2 deletions. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The page was recreated with better content, since its deletion the number of ghits has sextupled, and its deletion was by no means a consensus deletion. It does not meet criteria for speedy deletion based on these three points. JFW | T@lk 15:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The prior AfD was two years ago, and as far as I can tell this is the second request. (please let me know if I'm wrong on that score). This gentleman has virtually no Google hits, but in blogspace he seems to be quite well known. Here's an example. The thing that makes me think that he's notable is that many, perhaps the majority, of those hits seem to be people responding to him or his ideas, rather than his own ranting. Xymmax (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Was deleted twice on the same day. Probably deleted per the discussion, then immediately recreated, but re-deleted. Yes, two years ago, but reading through the previous AfD, it appears that the same issues exist. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and then re-created by consensus as found at Talk:Gil_Student#New_article. Please also note that the first nomination was by someone with strong ideological objections to the subject of the article, and that may very well also be the case for the present nomination, despite the official declaration of the nominator.Dovi (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Dovi, say it like it is, don't be vague, Gil Student is fearless in his opposition to Chabad messianism and has written widely about the subject on his blog and website, and his material is widely used and relied on. Therefore this has made him a hated figure to Chabad people, and naturally pro-Chabad POV editors (as User Meshulam (talk · contribs) appears to be) will always try to "bump him off Wikipedia" and they would do it in real life to if they could. It's part of a very vicious vendetta against this outspoken and fearless man. Gil Student is as notable as any local Chabad rabbi who has his own article on Wikipedia and we should check those out first to be consistent. IZAK (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No attribution of notability to independent or credible sources. Blogs responding to his ideas fail WP:RS. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • He has been published in newspapers such as The Jewish Press. His Hirhurim blog was ranked "Best Jewish Religion Blog" for 2005 by The Jerusalem Post "2005 Jewish & Israeli Blog Awards", Jerusalem Post and has been cited in The Wall Street Journal for declining to run an ad for "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. This is easily sufficient notability to satisfy WP:BIO. An AfD discussion assesses whether the topic is a notable and verifiable topic. Jewish and religious sources are considered reliable sources for Jewish and religious matters, including whether a Jewish and religious figure is considered notable in the field of religion. 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. IZAK (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per previous AfD's, no notability asserted. Only hits fail WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-Seems to be doing some okay things but nothing world-shaking or even worth posting outside of a personal blog.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • His blog is not merely "personal" you obviously do not have insight into how the Jewish community communicates. Official insititutions like YU and other yeshivas do not issue "press releases" on issues, it is individuals who often do and must fill the gaps and they have credibility. He is notable in the world of Judaism, why would you expect anything "world shaking" from that? Wikipedia does not require "world-shaking" articles as long as they are important to the field they relate to. IZAK (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. These second nominations are so tiresome. The previous nomination made it perfectly clear that his notability is huge based on the banned-books/creationism debate in the Natan Slifkin affair, and for his book on the continuing polemical debate in Chabad. The talk page would have been a much better place to deal with this. See Talk:Gil_Student#New_article. Dovi (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment- Yes, they are tiresome, because he shouldn't be here to nominate. A hyped opinionated blogger is just that and this article is simply trying to promote him as an awesome "mind-shaper" of the Jewish People. And before you throw in the 'he must be an anti-semite', I am Jewish. Everyone has their excuses for wanting to be listed. List him on Bloggers-R-US under 'people with opinions'.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Icono: He is as good as anyone in Category:Bloggers as far as the Orthodox Jewish world is concerned. Who cares if you are Jewish? that is is not part of this or any discussion so keep details about your personal life private or post it on your user page if you like, but not here. Thanks for not mixing your ps and qs. IZAK (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, apparently you care because in the comments further up you stated that I obviously don't know how my own people communicate so in order to keep that from going into and anti-semitic comments as it does with others who state opinions about these topics, I made sure to state my position. Don't make it personal and people won't have to get personal.---Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the only Halacha Jewish blogger he is famous in transforming the Jewish blog sphere into series discussions rather than tabloid innuendo, and the Jerusalem Post even recognized him as the best Jewish Bloger, he is active daily in shaping Jewish thought also has a publishing house which is noted in other newspapers by all means he is enough notable for wikipedia.--יודל (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.--יודל (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Although he's mostly a blogger, blogs can be reliable sources for notable (I know, that word again) academics writing in their field, which I would argue is how the subject should be considered. He even has had an essay published in Oxford Journal's Modern Judaism (a peer reveiw pub) back in 2004 , no free link available but you can view the synopsis here. Xymmax (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting point; however, were he evaluated on academic criteria, he would certainly fail on notability. More charitable to view him within a blogosphere context. HG | Talk 04:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If his notability is so huge then where are all the press articles about him? The reviews of his book? The biographies? One mention in a newspaper for winning one of seventeen categories for his blog doesn't constitute notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, on second look: Delete. I was mistaken. • Lawrence Cohen 20:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Yossiea (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the issues have long been discussed. He is not just another "blogger" -- he is a publisher, involved in the Rabbi Natan Slifkin controversy of "evolation and Judaism" and is a publisher of books. He is a pivotal spokesman for Modern Orthodox Judaism online and his writings and views are used in countering Chabad messianism, and his well-researched articles relating to Modern Orthodoxy are masterpieces. This is a bad-faith nomination by someone opposed to Gil Student's position. IZAK (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • commentStudent is a blogger. The fact that he blogs about controversial issues does not make him a "spokesman" of Modern Orthodox Judaism (at least, most Modern Orthodox Jews, including rabbonim, are unaware of the existence of this spokesman, whose impact outside of his own blog has been minimal). I agree that he researches his articles well (though we could debate the usage of the word "masterpiece"). That isn't enough to be notable. What gets me most about the above is that you assume my nomintion was in bad faith. Thats offensive, frankly. There are plenty of figures who have articles dedicated to them on Wikipedia who I disagree with on various issues. I think this is my first nomination for deletion ever (To say nothing for the fact that you're supposed to assume good faith). The reason I nominated Student is that he isn't notable, plain and simple. --Meshulam (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi Meshulam: Thank you for your response. I could not disagree with you more and I stand by my assertions. Firstly, a blogger can be notable, and Student is probably one of the most respected bloggers about matters relating to Modern Orthodox Judaism. Who among those Orthodox Judaic scholars on the world wide web has not heard of Gil Student on the relatively new medium of the Internet driven Information Age? Sure people who don't own computers or never use them may be out of the loop on this one, but for anyone involved with Jewish issues online, especially as they relate to some of the most controversial hot button controversies, Gill Student is smack-dab part of it. It is hard to believe that you dispute this as it all WP:SOURCED and meets WP:BLP. Do not shoot the messenger because you don't like the message. IZAK (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable, serious rabbi, passes WP:N very well. Lobojo (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. He is a serious rabbi, informative and smart, and well known in certain (esp blogging and internet) circles. He's fairly significant among Jewish bloggers, but not big in blogging overall. So far, his non-blogging work is respectable but not very notable (hence lack of biogr sources). I anticipate that he will become notable (unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball). In sum, I agree with Izak's description of his situation, except are there any sources that substantiate the status of a "spokesman" yet? Leaning toward delete. HG | Talk 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • HG: So who do you recommend, more notable than Gil Student, should be the first one put into a proposed Category:Jewish bloggers or Category:Bloggers about Judaism that would be legitimate sub-categories of Category:Bloggers? IZAK (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per HG; that sums up my feelings very well. TomTheHand (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • What does? IZAK (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A lot has happened in the last two years, so I would take this AfD on its own merits. It seems to me that his opinions have generated enough attention that they might have been picked up in WP:reliable sources, so I wouldn't speedy-delete or WP:SNOW this one. I think this will come down to a straightforward decision of whether there are enough sources and whether they are reliable enough. He's mentioned in plenty of blogs, but blogs generally aren't regarded as reliable sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Umm Shira, with all due respect, you make no sense. The discussion here is not about sources from blogs, but his notability as a blogger and more (and there is no other way to measure the notability of a blogger than to see how widespread he is accepted in the blogosphere -- aptly a sub-category of Category:Digital Revolution -- and we are in the early launch of this revolution in Jewish circles, so it cannot be ignored or brushed off), and if he is notable as a blogger, then he is notable. If not, then delete the entire Category:Bloggers to be consistent! In just one of its many sub-categories, Category:American bloggers there are close to a thousand bloggers, do you honestly think that each and every one of them merited an article in Wikipedia based on the kind of "criteria" you mention? Surely not! To repeat, while a blog may not always be a reliable source as such, it is faulty logic to say that therefore by extension a blogger cannot be notable unless there are non-blogging "sources" to prove it. This is part of a an evolving, yet new internet culture, and there is no reason to subject Gil Student to requirements that almost no other serious bloggers face as they get theire own Wikipedia biographies. Indeed, Judaic editors are behind in this area since Category:Jewish bloggers does not even exist, the closest thing is Category:Blogs about Jews and Judaism. Jews need not be more punctilious about this than anyone else when it should really have been around a while already and Gil Student should be one of the first to go into such a category. IZAK (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Plus I remind both of you and a number of the commentators above that you are dealing with the wrong issue. His notability is not just as a blogger, but as the person who published banned books after Feldheim publishers bowed to the cherem, and led the campaign for their legitimacy. This is the first time such a thing has happened in Orthodox Judaism in modern times. Dovi (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Dovi: Agreed. I was only addressing the issue that Shira mentioned, but I have stressed his importance in the Natan Slifkin controversy. IZAK (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • There are numerous blogs that have had a profound effect on American life (or, to a lesser extent, the world). Redstate, Dailykos, etc. These political blogs have shaped political campaigns, and leveled the playing field for people who want to make a point politically. That's why bloggers could potentially be notable. Gil Student is not notable, however, inasmuch as his only effect has been felt within the daled amos of his own blog. That doesn't make someone notable. It might make someone prolific. But that doesn't make anyone notable. I have now asked you twice to stop accusing me of editing with an agenda. You have yet to point to any pattern of edits that define an agenda. I have edited very fairly over a wide number of articles. This is my only AfD nomination. I have not made AfD nominations against people like David Burger (who I have plenty of issues with, but who is undoubtedly notable) or other opponents of Chabad. Yet rather than debate the issues completely, you fall back on insults. I find it sad that you must be so petty when it would be better for all of us if you could assume good faith, as you are required to, and make this a semi-intelligent conversation.--Meshulam (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Meshulam, sometimes we learn from our experiences. Last time around the article was deleted twice in the same day, not because of any wrongdoing, but simply because people were editing in it while it was deleted and when they pressed "save" they never even realized they had recreated it! Some of those very edits were clear proofs that the deletion nomination was for ideological purposes, but then of course the edits themselves were deleted such that the injustice is no longer shown in the article's history... I apologize if I misjudge you, but I also think that given the past, davka a chabadnik should make an effort to coordinate an AFD with others if it involves a subject highly critical of Chabad. Finally, to the actual issue, a Jewish blog should be rated by its notability in its field, not compared to a world-news blog or a Star Trek blog. Dovi (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Put into the article reliable sources that report his accomplishment -- "the first time such a thing has happened in Orthodox Judaism in modern times." I followed the Slifkin controversy very closely and I personally deem it important and admire him, but was R. Student's role truly notable in WP terms? If you find the sources, and honestly I hope you can, you get (bli neder) my Keep vote. HG | Talk 07:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
"the first time such a thing has happened in Orthodox Judaism in modern times." -- This was exactly the topic of the 1995 Moment Magazine article, but I can't seem to find it online anymore. There was another article published elsewhere about the explosive and sudden impact of the internet (and blogging) on this particular internet debate, which was like no other before. But it's been a while since then. The article could use these things, but that should have been on the talk page, not an AFD. Dovi (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks more like you're making a point than a reasoned argument. HG | Talk 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - being (primarily) a blogger can certainly be notable, which is evidenced in the size of the Category:Bloggers population. And there is no question that goings-on in the haredi world are covered in mainstream press only when something highly unusual happens. I'd like to see more citations, but there is no question Student is notable. --Leifern (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep For me he is a hero; the only person who has produced a comprehensive refutation to anti-Semitic accusations. Very notable in my mind. I was pleased to be able to read more about him after finding this article on wiki a few months ago after seeing what he wrote on the internet to defend the Talmud. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think this is clearly a vanity page. Yes, he's a notable Jewish blogger, but that doesn't merit an encyclopedia entry. There are many bloggers, there are many publishers, there are many rabbis. None of those things alone or together merit an encyclopedia entry. There are 100,000 Jewish communal workers who are better known than Gil Student and do not have (and will never have) Wikipedia entries. I can assure everyone here that 99.999999% of Jews in the world have never heard of anyone named Gil Student. There's just a small cadre of internet addicts who think he's the best thing since sliced bread. That's fine, I like the guy too, I think he's intelligent, I applaud him for supporting Slifkin and the interests of Jewish rationality (such as it is), but he's not yet worthy of encyclopedia fame. —Dfass (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    You clearly have heard of him, so your argument is internally inconsistent. Tomertalk 15:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I am among the small cadre, so my statistics are fine, thank you very much. —Dfass (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No. Figuring 13M Jews, with your statistics, 1/10 of 1 Jew has heard of him. Tomertalk 18:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep he was a key player in the Slifkin affair, and he now has his own publishing company, publishing books others won't touch. In addition, he is considered by many to be one of the preeminent Jewish bloggers on the net. He is certainly noteworthy of a Wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm personally aware of his role in the Slifkin affair among other issues, and I also personally think his role important and notable for these things. The difficulty is how to establish that this isn't simply my personal opinion. It's one thing to say that, for example, decisions by notable rabbinical courts are acceptable reliable sources on Jewish law) because the rabbinical court system ensures that such opinions are peer-reviewed and don't simply represent the views of individuals. But there are limits. One question I have is whether there are any sources (we can discuss their reliability later) indicating that major figures in Modern Orthodox Judaism have commented on Gil Student. Has the head of the RCA or YU or other clearly notable figures claimed that what Gil Student has said or done is important? Is there any basis so that we can say his importance is based on what someone notable says rather than our own opinion? We do have the Jerusalem Post's best Jewish blog award. Do we have anything else? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think he's very notable, and I think that it is a chutzpah for him to publish books that were condemned by Gedolei Yisroel, but I also don't think people should have to be particularly notable to be in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezra Wax (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 3/5 Keep => Keep. After great consideration, my judgment is that if Shaul Shimon Deutsch fulfills the requirements for notability, Student does as well. Tomertalk 18:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As you may know, our guidelines specifically deprecrate this kind of AfD reasoning. The key questions are: How is he notable and do reliable sources establish this notability? It is proposed that he is notable as a blogger and for his role with Slifkin. Supporting sources? HG | Talk 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He is a rabbi, a writer and a publisher. I don't read blogs (in fact I detest them), and yet I know who he is, or at least 1/10 of me does if Dfass's statistics are to be believed. Tomertalk 21:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know of him, too. (I know of many rabbis, many Jewish bloggers, and some publishers.) But our familiarity with him does not establish notability for Wikipedia purposes. We need reliable sources that pay some significant attention to him. Where are they? HG | Talk 22:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dfass. --Shuki (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. A recipient of an award hence notable. He is also clearly pain in the ass to some to generate enough buzz in some circles. `'Míkka>t 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Here's a start, a clearly reliable source (a New York Times article) mentioning Gil Student's role in the Slifkin affair: [2]. Perhaps there is other press out there as well. --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.The Jerusalem Post and New York Times sources fulfill the minimum requirement of two independent clearly reliable sources. although they don't have much in the way of biographical information they do clearly support the key notability claims, (a) as an important blogger on Jewish affairs and (b) because of his role in the Slifkin controversy. Given that reliable (if somewhat scanty) sources exist on the key notability claims, although I think this is a borderline case I'm inclined to give the wide awareness of him in the community who edits Wikipedia Judaism articles a little bit of weight to help push him over the border. --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Getting closer. Our guidelines state: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (bold added) However, here's the sum total of the New York Times info on R. Student: "And Rabbi Gil Student, whose company, Yashar Books, has taken over the distribution of the other two books, said he had done a year's business in a month selling them." This is what the guidelines call a "trivial" mention. The NYT might establish R. Slifkin as notable, but certainly not R. Student. HG | Talk 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The ample reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article support the claims of notability contained therein and satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per HG. Nobody has heard of him outside the confined circles of the Jewish religious blogosphere. That's not notable enough for an encyclopedia IMHO. Just because he happens to voice controversial and unusual opinions in Orthodox Judaism doesn't make him notable enough for an entry of his own. His opinions, their impact etc. can and should, of course, be mentioned in any articles they are relevant to. -- Nahum (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi Nahum: The blogosphere is displacing almost all the conventional media today. More people read, spend time on, and learn from the blogs that relate to their own interests than from all other sources combined, for the simple fact that people own computers (Jews have one of the highest percentages of computer ownership and online access) and blogs are interactive and anyone can start one. The fact that Gil Student's blog http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/ has risen to the "top ten" Judaism blogs/bloggers is an astounding success that cannot be ignored because that is the "voice of the (Jewish) people" speaking online. That is why the other media, like the NY Times and Jerusalem Post have noted him. But the NY Times and JPost represent old media whereas blogs and bloggers are part of the new media revolution that is only in its first stages as it will sweep away the entire old order, and Gil Student's blogging on (Orthodox) Jewish matters certainly stands at the head of the new (Jewish) blogging revolution, as proven by the huge amount of Google hits and mentions he gets in so many places on so many blogs, see GHits for "Gil Student" and for "Hirhurim" - Gil Student's blog. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
As you can see above, the trivial NYT sentence is merely because he published the book, not about his blogging at all. Maybe blogs will sweep away the old order, but in the meantime Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. HG | Talk 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Umm HG: Who's talking about crystal balls, "the future is now" and all the issues are inter-connected (with a minor mention here and a big mention there... here a mention, there a mention, everywhere mention, mention, sung to the tune of "Old McDonald Had a Farm") so that his blog, his publication of books, his views, have made him a standard-bearer of Modern Orthodoxy on the web, and boy, the Lubavitchers hate him big time for his online anti-Chabad messianism exposes! He has been published in newspapers such as The Jewish Press Web Choices 2007 Medical Ethics And Jewish Politics by Rabbi Gil Student; Stories of Yeshiva College By: Gil Student; Media Monitor, 2006; and more) . His Hirhurim blog was ranked "Best Jewish Religion Blog" for 2005 by The Jerusalem Post "2005 Jewish & Israeli Blog Awards", and has been cited in The Wall Street Journal. He more than qualifies as notable based on multiple citations, or would he need to be involved in a sex-scandal to qualify? as that has seemed to become a criterian lately around here. IZAK (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I tend to be deletionist about bloggers and blogs, because information from blogosphere is very hard to verify. However, I cannot ignore 30,000 Ghits. JFW | T@lk 15:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, is this really a question about what you cannot ignore or about what reliable sources and media cannot ignore? The mainstream press, scholars and other reliables sources do provide information on bloggers. As a result, many bloggers are notable and have sufficiently referenced info under Wikipedia guidelines. Does Rabbi Student? HG | Talk 16:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very notable rabbi, author, and publisher. --Ortho (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As mentioned above. Student has a noted impact to the cultural debates in the modern (lowercase and uppercase) orthodox jewish world in the US, Europe, and Israel. He is an emerging (and already emerged) thought-leader and pundit. Perhaps the length of this vote is proof that he is a force to deal with, and that alone justifies the article. This is not a vote of popularity or agreement with his views, rather an acknowledgement that he is relevant enough to be in the wikipedia by virtue of his "reach" and impact. (Note, I'm a different person also named "Gil".) Gil (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep clearly a notable figure. Gzuckier (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep Author as well as blogger. Abe Froman (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep We've been through this before - yes he has a famous blog, but he's also an author, publisher, and somewhat controversial figure in the rabbinic community. --Bachrach44 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete: For all the reasons outlined above, and most notably it being non-notable per Wikipedia guidelines. NOTE: The subject of the article is rallying his forces, with vague language nonetheless, on his blog to come defend this article in force; this is insufficient basis to keep this. Joseph (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please assume good faith. If "his forces" can provide reliable sources, then they will have established that he is notable and given sources that can be used to improve the article. If they can't, they will have no effect on this AfD and it will tend towards a delete. Confrontational language is detrimental to the goal of this discussion. Nihiltres{t.l} 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Recuse self as I commented (to explain the concept of notability) on the subject's blog post about this AfD. Nihiltres{t.l} 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does no one find it astonishing that as we debate, WP has entries on hundreds or thousands of fictional characters from Star Trek, Harry Potter etc with full biographies as if they were real? R Student's is influential because his blog is widely read by orthodox thinkers and because he publishes important books. His bio could probably stand to be edited down a bit but not deleted--Mrogovin (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Student is an up-and-coming opinion maker in the Orthodox Jewish Community whose blog, book and publishing company have had and promise to have significant impact on policy discussions within the American Orthodox Jewish community. Agree or disagree with him, but it would be foolish to delete his entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.204.166 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: I refuse to vote, as I'm biased by friendship to the subject. However, I think we need clarification on how notability is defined. R' Gil Student is often quoted by people who spend much time on line. He is a rabbi with no physical congregation and does not meet with a student body (aside from Mrs Student and his little Students). Arguing for his inclusion on the grounds of his heading Yashar Press seems faulty, as the founders and the owners far more successful (so far, give Yashar more time ;-) ) Feldheim Press have no such entry. (The press does, not the owner.) Similarly, his debates against the Messianic movement within Lubavitch have made no ripples outside the internet community.

Part of it is a philosophical question: Is wikipedia an encyclopedia that is on line, or an encyclopedia for the online community? Just as one would expect more coverage of topics of interest to US citizens in the Encyclopedia Americana than in the Britannica, perhaps the parallel should be true of wikipedia.

Given that there is a blogger category, it would seem to me that wikipedia is the latter -- acknowledging the demographics who its user base. People notable only as on line figures do seem to qualify for wikipedia inclusion on those grounds alone. I think those voting against would have to explain the existence of the entire category. --micha (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Micha. It would help to see other examples of on-line figures who, though lacking sufficient reliable sources on paper to be notable, are notable nonetheless. (Even among bloggers, he isn't an exceptionally awarded or powerful presence. His great strength is the quality of his work.) Personally, I can imagine making an IAR exception here, but wouldn't we then be relying unduly on the subjective judgments of whoever shows up for the Afd? HG | Talk 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment hmmm the blog appears to have responded.Geni 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia meets the Jewish blogosphere. While Wikipedia has the right to discuss and publish everything, so do blogs and bloggers. IZAK (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • comment The subjects blog entry appears to be a call to arms by his henchmen (sorry for that loaded word ;-) to fight to keep this article, without so much as saying so. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.77.206.228 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's one of the most important and influential orthodox Jewish voices on the Internet and his influence precedes the blogging era. Ron Coleman (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, publisher, author, notable voice on the web confronting modern issues and controversies relevant to Orthodox Judaism (e.g. Slifkin, Chabad, Talmud, Feminism, Halacha). In addition to his various award-winning and/or popular websites and book, he's published in journals [3]. Besides the Jerusalem Post and New York Times sources given above for his role in the Slifkin controversy, here are a few more in Haaretz, Jewish Press, American Jewish Life Magazine --MPerel 19:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep, He is a great internet personality and that counts more than non-internet personality. And besides, if he is talking about his wikipedia entry on his blog and really wants to stay on wikipedia, that should be reason enough!
    • And also I see all the voters he sent here to vote for him outweigh all the naysayers. 69.112.200.98 (talk)
      • Actually, I agree that posting about this was a rather silly move on his part. But to keep things in perspective, only a couple of the most recent comments/votes seem to be a result of that. All of the rest are from long-term, serious Wikipedia contributors. In any case the sources by MPerel above, added to the Moment magazine article, more than do it for notability. Dovi (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree with Dovi that Gil Student needn't have posted anything about this AfD on his blog at this time, but it in no way detracts from the merits of the biography on Wikipedia, which, now that so many additional sources and links to media and articles have been cited in this discussion, should become part of, and incoroprated into, the article. IZAK (talk) 07:14, 28 November 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.