Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Menachem Creditor

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. But the references given here to support the article need to be included in it. Tyrenius 03:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Menachem Creditor

Menachem Creditor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable or, specifically, is not noted in multiple sources. The rabbi is noted in several online Jewish-related journals, but none in mainstream sources large publishing houses or newspapers. Iamunknown 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I also must note that I originally prodded it, but it was contested. --07:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Why is a Judaism-related journal not "mainstream"? You're implying that Judaism isn't a mainstream religion, although I'm sure that you meant no such implication. At any rate, Rabbi Creditor appears to be a prolific figure within the Conservative Jewish community, which qualifies him for inclusion under WP:BIO. Keep but rewrite to assert importance (my mistake, article does assert importance, it just doesn't provide supporting cites) but rewrite to more strongly assert importance and properly attribute notability. Groupthink 07:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed I am not implying what you are you inferring. I was and am specifically referring to the publications I examined that document Rabbi Creditor. I challenge you to find citations that suggest that "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Indeed, while there are a few mentions in two campus newspapers (The Daily Free Press and Campusj) and in The Jewish Week and The Jewish Advocate, there are none in The New York Times, The Times or other large publishing houses. Cheers, Iamunknown 08:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unclear as to exactly what you mean. A search for Edward Witten in Google News also doesn't return any mentions in large-circulation periodicals, but does that make one of the most brilliant living theoretical physicists unnotable? Remember, meeting any of the listed standards in WP:BIO means that a person is generally notable. In the case of Creditor, "the person has demonstrable wide name recognition" suffices, so your challenge is moot (although I do think the article could use more/better citations). Groupthink 09:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Remember, meeting any of the listed standards in WP:BIO means that a person is generally notable. - true; I guess I don't agree that Rabbi Creditor meets any of the listed standards. You argue that he meets the The person has demonstrable wide name recognition standard? That has yet to be demonstrated, so I don't consider my challenge moot. --Iamunknown 16:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify. I meant that your challenge to find secondary source material in large-circulation materials was moot. Here's why I think that Creditor is notable:

1. Has been reported on here, here, and here. Granted these pubs are not widely circulated, but they do have WP entries (here, here, and here), and I would say that they should still be considered valid 2ary sources notable in the communities which they serve.
2. I actually did find a non-Jewish 2ary source that mentions Creditor: The Daily Free Press article here. Again, we're not talking the New York Times, but again, we are talking about a pub deemed worthy for inclusion in WP.
3. In this event posting, Boston University describes Creditor as "a leading Conservative Rabbi".
4. This article from Keshet Ga'ava (a GLBT Jewish organization) describes him as "a leading advocate of gay ordination".

That last one I would say points the way toward re-writing the article with proper emphasis on why Creditor is notable. Groupthink 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The rabbi appears to be notable; the problem is that the article makes him seem trivial. Fix the article. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP is not limited by the NYTimes indexing, but covers what is notable. WP is not a newspaper. DGG 08:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete google search turned up 990 hits. I have personally have a cousin who davens there. --Shuliavrumi 13:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused -- why are those reasons for deletion? Groupthink 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the meaning intended was 1/990 ghits aren't enough, and 2/ just because one knows of somebody that doesn't make him notable for WP purposes. As I see it, ghit counts are irrelevant--it's what's in the ghits that matters. However, I certainly agree about person knowledge or ignorance of someone not being a good reason one way or another--but I dont think anyone had raised that argument. DGG 06:04, 19 June 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.