Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jen Taylor Friedman
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. DES (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jen Taylor Friedman
This person is not notable. Being female proto-"clergy" is not significant (especially in Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism) so this violates WP:NN. Within Orthodox Judaism the function of sofer ("scribe") is reserved for male practitioners according to Jewish law and custom, so to imply that females can do so would violate WP:NOR. By its self-laudatory nature this article would also seem to violate WP:COI as well as WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. IZAK 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for above reasons. IZAK 11:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with IZAK. I would also add that as Friedman only coverage is because she is a novelty (female torah scribe) it is not enough (per WP:BLP) to have an article about her. The subject can be better dealt with in Sofer#Women and Sofrut. Jon513 11:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think there is some significant/novel information in this article, if only because it seems to contest the (POV?) description of the Sofer#Women and Sofrut piece. Indeed, that she acts as a sofer against Orthodox custom is what makes her work significant (and including this fact is hardly original research, contra IZAK above). Accordingly, I recommend moving her info into that piece of Women and Sofrut. Otherwise, she doesn't seem independently notable at this time. HG | Talk 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Given there are a fair number of references in the mainstream press, I can't see how this constitutes original research. I also fail to see how it can be "self-laudatory" unless you're alleging that the subject of the article wrote it herself. As for the argument about who may act as a sofer for which documents, I think that is better described in Sofer than belaboured in AFD. Pseudomonas(talk) 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Whether the Orthodox Jews consider her legitimate is besides the point--in fact, if this is controversial, it's all the more reason to keep the article, and include the discussion. The sources are sufficient. DGG (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep There is no question that she's notable. Her article has links to four independent news articles about her, including one that ran on the Associated Press, a national news service. If the article is "self-laudatory", edit it to change its tone; don't delete it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've spent some time cleaning up the article, improving it I hope. I would also note that, contrary to IZAK's comment, Friedman is neither "proto-'clergy'" nor is her vocation unremarkable for women in the liberal Jewish movements — she is one of five known soferot in the world. (And she is a traditional, halakhic Jew, FWIW, although she doesn't identify with any movement.) I would encourage those who favor deleting the article to read the latest version. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: non-trivial coverage in multiple independent verifiable sources --Pak21 14:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Seems to be notable enough. --Eliyak T·C 07:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per the bulk of non-trivial coverage about this subject, passes WP:BIO well. RFerreira 20:15, 29 July 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.
