Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yisroel Dovid Weiss

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. --Coredesat 06:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yisroel Dovid Weiss

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Yisroel Dovid Weiss (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - The attendance of Neturei Karta at the conference may be notable, not every participant is notable. Avi 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep First I'd just like to say: Wow, Avi, you put so much work into it sourcing and are now nominating it/. you are a better person than I am. That said, weak keep Weiss is the head spokesperson it seems for his part of Neuterei Karta and has been the subject of a variety of articles such as the NYT piece which is cited in the article (the piece I think focused on Weiss. I'll look it up later to make sure)). JoshuaZ 07:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Thank you image:smile.gif. I am putting work in, for as long as it is in wiki, it is a Bio, and must have extra care taken per WP:BLP, but really do not think HE is notable. The article is 95% about the visit, not the person, so that is a failure of notability for the person, in my opinion. -- Avi 07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep obvious notability given wide media coverage, look at all those sources for crying out loud.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment And they are all about the VISIT, not the MAN. See my initial comment above. While the attendance may be notable, that does not mean the individual participants are. Also, as a matter of procedure, this is not a "Speedy" keep, per se. You may mean "Strong" keep. -- Avi 12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Avi 12:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete The attendance at the conference are notable, but the individuals are not. Most of the "citations" which are positive toward Mr. Weiss are rife with misrepresentations. From his title as Rabbi, which is not supported by any indicia of scholarship or ordination, to the extent of his support, Mr. Weiss and six or seven of his cronies have sucked many into their delusional world where they are believed to somehow espouse the true "Jewish voice." To the extent that this article is not written like others concerning eccentrics like the Joshua Norton, the self-styled emperor of the United States, or David Koresh, a self-proclaimed Messiah, this article is, to be perfectly frank, silly, irrelevant, and concerns a non-notable individual who was remarkably successful in convincing non Jews that he is somehow notable in the Jewish world. Bravo. Good Show. 67.81.158.13 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) — 67.81.158.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This is not a "Speedy"; there are no procedural issues here. Perhaps you meant "Strong". -- Avi 18:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This is purely a fact based issue. Mr. Weiss is not notable. He is not a Rabbi. He claims to represent an already splintered group of Neturei Karta followers. He actually claims to have HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of SUPPORTERS, even though he has about seven. His ideas are just a ruse to justify the donations he recieved from Arafat and continues to recieve from other avowed terrorists. He claims to lecture in a school which does not exist. Frankly, every thing stated in this article is untrue, save the fact he was condemned by the entire Jewish world--whether religious or non-religious, Zionist, or non-Zionist. It is made by an imposter who has not made a single notable achievement in his entire life except fool a non Jews like bsnowball who knows absolutely nothing about what he really is about and likes him only for political reasons (even though he has never and will never achieve anything of significance because he is completely out of his mind!). How this could have been going on for so long is beyond me. I strongly advocate this stain on Wikipedia's standards and firmly hope it is removed speedily. DavidCharlesII 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)— DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • David, we know you don't like the man and don't like what he stands for. Neither do I. That doesn't alter whether or not we should have an article on him. JoshuaZ 15:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I am sorry, but this has nothing to do with whether I like him or not. There is nothing notable about Mr. Weiss. He is assumed to be notable simply because he is a media hound and lied to appear notable. That's not notable. The only ones who are disputing his notability are those who don't know better, or, as in the past, have very strong anti-Israel political issues. DavidCharlesII 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Please assume good faith and be civil. Whether he is a media hound and whether he has lied aren't relevant. Please actually read WP:BIO- what matters is the existence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. And we seem to have that. JoshuaZ 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete Wow. This is really funny. You have Rabbi 67 and Rabbi David Charles attempting to add facts into this article to at least salvage it, and others who know nothing about the issues change it because it does not feel right--all while maintaining that the lies Mr. Weiss made are somehow sourced because they are in op-eds, while other op-eds are not "reliable." Hillarious. Mr. Weiss is a non-event, a nobody. No one ever heard of him. Everything about him in this article is untrue except for the fact that he was in Tehran and is banned from everything Jewish. I mean, come on, when do we start adding town idiots and town drunks to Wikipedia? Are they important, too? Rabbi 67 and David Charles deserve commendation for what they have tried to do. I think this is a better route. Take this piece of nonsense out of wikipedia. Unless, of course, you write an article about a flat Earth, making it sound like its true--based on sources from the 14th century. Its funny, but come on, its not an encyclopedia. — SuperCharedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Strong Delete Weiss is not noteworthy.DanielFriedberg 15:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC) — DanielFriedberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The subject appears to meet notability guidelines. Leebo86 15:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Does the MAN meet the standards, or does the MEETING meet the standards -- they are two different things! -- Avi 15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, the man meets the standards, as far as I can tell. Please don't shout at me or assume I'm not reading. Leebo86 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • No offense meant, just trying to clarify what I beleive is a misconception. Care to explain why you believe the man is notable? -- Avi 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
          • From a strictly neutral basis, he has been the subject of several non-trivial publications by reliable sources. Now, whether or not the article appropriately reflects his notability is something different and I'm not sure what the answer for that is. Leebo86 15:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Better yet, I am curious as to the worthiness of the sources which give the appearance of Mr. Weiss's notablity. Seeing as no one ever heard of him in the Jewish world, it is harldy likely that he is notable, aside from the lies he tells the press, which were discussed both here and on the discussion boards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)
    • David, he gets major press coverage. Whether he does that by lying to the press or not isn't that relevant. What matters is whether he passes WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 15:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • But what makes him notable? Something HE did? Hardly. The meeting is may be significant in the eyes of some, but it does not make him noteworthy. Do you know everyone who fought in the Civil war? Let's get ALL the names now. SuperCharedi 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, the NYT article and other sources focus on Weiss. He therefore meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
          • It does not focus on Weiss. We can have an article on him saying that there was an NYU article which quoted Weiss who explained why he and six others decided to meet someone who decided he will go to Tehran. Yay. That's not notable. 67.81.158.13 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
            • It has a large amount of material on Weiss and quotes from him extensively. For example, it includes this paragraph "Rabbi Weiss, 54, grew up in the Orthodox neighborhood of Borough Park, Brooklyn, the son of Hungarians who fled Eastern Europe before Hitler’s troops closed its borders to Jews. He married 18 years ago and has six children. The family moved to Monsey seven years ago, solidifying Neturei Karta’s presence in the town." among others. JoshuaZ 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Sounds incredibly trivial. His connection with the Tehran conference was what was important. While we are at it, you might have a point. An old lady was quoted today in NYT--Gertrude Rothman--she is 87, lives in the Bronx, likes to shop at the store across the block. She went there to buy salmon. she was wearing a pink blouse. Oh yeah, the subject of the article was about a robbery next door. 67.81.158.13 18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Um, this is a) more info than that, b) the example paragraph is not the only one about him c) as already observed, there are other sources as well, such as the Fox News sources. JoshuaZ 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether through fame or infame he seems clearly to meet notability criteria. --BozMo talk 15:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. - NYC JD (make a motion) 16:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If we have an NK page we should have moshe hirsch and yisroel weiss pages. --Shuli 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the point is not what he is noted for (and therefore notable) but THAT he is noted. After extensive sourcing of this article this should be clear to all AlfPhotoman 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I provided most of the sources, and yet I still, or more likely because of that, feel that he is not notable, (I nominated it ;) ) as all the sources are really about the event and not the man. image:smile.gif -- Avi 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment But both the NYT and the Fox News coverage focues on Weiss. JoshuaZ 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, sincerely I was hitting the sack in want of hitting the donkey. You more than anyone else should know that there is a certain amount of notability that we can attribute to the subject ... even if -- and here I agree with you -- the event was way more notable than the subject AlfPhotoman 17:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT Please check Avi's somewhat wild claims about the article & his input. The article does mention other facts, a conference in Durban 5 years ago etc. Also Ari has been adding to this disproportion by adding more stuff about the conference. Go figure.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I sincerely request you review the policy of assuming good faith, bsnow. The reason for my hours of work on this article, is, as I clearly stated above, that it is a biography of a living person, so any remotely controversial statement (such as the agudah and Edah statements) MUST be sourced. I went through the opening of the article, sentence by sentence, and searched for reliable sources to support the text, with the intent of removing any statement that was unsupported, per WP:BLP. COme to think of it, you should review WP:BLP, WP:ATT, and {{WP:CIVIL]] while you are at it, I am afraid. I would say that if everyone here paid as much attention to wiki policies as they do to personal political preference (how's THAT for alliteration image:smile.gif ), we would all be better off. I know better than to ask for an apology from you, but you really need to take a step back and make sure you are not letting persoanl points-of-view overwhelm your ability to edit wiki in accordance with its rules. -- Avi 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a balanced, well-sourced article which makes a solid case for Weiss' notability. And notability is the only issue which falls under our purview. I am militantly disinterested, as I hope the closing admin will be, in whether Weiss is "entitled" to be called a rabbi, the popularity (or lack thereof) of his organization or the degree to which he is obviously loathed by a faction here on Wikipedia. It does strike me as odd that so many folk know so much about someone they are claiming is non-notable, but ultimately, it's well to remember this: Wikipedia is not written to personally please you. RGTraynor 18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nor is it to personally please you. The lies throughout the papers which are not about him but his organization are not so notable as to justify an entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.158.13 (talk • contribs)
      • Well, frankly, were I an anonymous IP with no other edits on Wikipedia save for this discussion, I wouldn't myself presume to preach on what justifies an entry here or not. For my own part, I'm still bemused that so many people seem to know so much about a fellow they then go on to claim is non-notable. If that's really so, from what sources did you learn so much? RGTraynor 19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well I appreciate that you are bemused. I find it amusing that my history shows that I have made so few edits. I made hundreds. And I can preach on what makes fundamental sense. I would gladly prepare a beautiful article on Gertrude Rothman, a sweet, bubbly 87 year old lade who was quoted in the NYT. She likes fish, especially trout, believes that kids are not the way they used to be, and likes to shop in a stor across the street from her house. She lives in the Bronx. Even though she was quoted in the broader context of a burglarly next door, I think she is noteworthy. She was quoted in the Post, too, after all. Weiss is no less. Naturally, it is somewhat surprising that people know "so" much about him. Like the fact he was excomunnicated by every Jewish faction--Zionist or or anti-Zionist. Or that he lies about the extent of his support (a fact several anti semites refuse to allow in the article), claiming he has Hundreds of Thousands of followers, when, in fact, he has less than a dozen. But this is what happens when someone goes out in the open, pandering to the media, and calling himself Rabbi (demanding the title, actually, he did that on Radio), and proclaiming himself to be the true voice of Judaism. Before proclomations are made, one must find out who on Earth this eccentric is. If this article was written about an eccentric, Like Joshua Norton, for example, I would not have a problem with it. But to make him sound any more defies logic, common sense, and most significantly for wikipeida, the facts. The reality is that we don't write articles about mongrels on the street who are quoted on the news. We don't write articles about town drunks who people may know about. We certainly need not write an article about someone whose only significance is that he claims to lead a organization which he does not. Neturei Karta was split up between Rabbi Blau's followers. Weiss, at best, follows the view of one of those followers. Because he was excomunnicated by all, how could he be regarded as legit? How could this not be qualified in the article about him? Because all he is doing is talking about this follower's orgniazation, and its efforts in America to pander with the axis of Evil, we can quote it within the broader scope of what he's talking about. But there is no need to write about its insignificant, deranged messenger.67.81.158.13 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Please stop ranting and explain how he doesn't meet this policy. JoshuaZ 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Let's see. Mr. Weiss would probably fall under Creative professionals: scientists, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.
            • This would mean he would have to be:
            • The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
            • The person is regarded as an important figure or significant expert by peers.
            • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or idea.
            • The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of multiple independent works, reviews, or documentaries.
            • The person or their work has been widely cited by authors, or is the basis for respected curriculum.
            • The person's work is or has been displayed in notable museums or exhibitions, or as a recognised monument.
            • Mr. Weiss does not fall under this category. Furthermore, "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable." Most of the coverage on him is trivial, incidental coverage. moreover, there is little content to add aside from his date of birth, the amount of children he has and what he claims. Everything is else is completely made up. The problem is that anti semites refuse to allow in the sources that prove this. Believe me, many have tried to clean up this cesspool of lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.158.13 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 March 2007
              • Quite. I'm waiting for that myself, amidst the blizzard of straw man arguments, loaded statements, insults and other irrelevancies. Frankly, there have been a number of hugely contested Judaism-related AfDs lately, and I can't be the only editor weary to death to the degree to which Wikipedia policies are plowed under the torrent of ideological squabbling boiling down to nothing more pertinent than "We hate this subject so it needs to be deleted." Great, so a bunch of you regard this guy as a nutcase and a traitor to Judaism and fervently wish the world ignored his existence; we get it. So stipulated; either source your assertions that he's a con man or move on. RGTraynor 20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • Talk about loaded statements, straw man arguments and insults!!! I apologize if my arguments are too much for you. He said on many occassions that he has hundreds of thousands of followers. He does not even have a hundred. He's a con man. 67.81.158.13 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • And his number of followers has nothing to do with whether he meets WP:BIO or not. What matters is sourcing, now can you explain why given the sourcing he does not meet WP:BIO? JoshuaZ 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
                      • On form, I doubt he will; I'm getting the strong impression this is far less about verifiable fact than about propaganda. Beyond that, the article makes no mention of "hundreds of thousands," nor does the NK article (which has been written in a demonizing, jeering format which wouldn't be supported in the Nazi, KKK or Aryan Nations articles). RGTraynor 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC) *comment removed due to WP:BLP concerns*
                        • And again, that's not relevant. Now does he meet WP:BIO or not? JoshuaZ 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to fit the notability guidelines, but just so - in short, close enough. --Dennisthe2 20:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Prominence in the news is prominence. The article makes no claims that he is more than he is, a person who made a perverse speech at a widely observed international gathering--a speech which attracted widespread notice. I do not attempt to tell whether the attempt to delete this article is due to the true but erroneous belief that this coverage did not occur, to the wish that it had not occurred, or to the view that WP should try to pretend such events are nonnotable in order to avoid encouraging them. It is sometimes hard to distingish between genuine ignorance and bias. .DGG 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree that this individual is notable under a fair reading of WP:BIO and notability is clearly backed by adequate attribution. Whether or not what he says is true or good or beautiful is completely irrelevant to his notability. End of story. --Shirahadasha 01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject is clearly notable. CJCurrie 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A thorough, well-researched and balanced article that uses reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Alansohn 04:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to new article: People identified with Neturei Karta similar to Russian space dogs and Monkeys in space because this guy is not notable in and of himself. (The dogs and monkeys had as much to do with the Russian space program as Mr. Weiss has to do with his "adopted" cause. See also: Animals in space.) IZAK 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Ignoring the fact that you are comparing this man to animals, it's not an adequate analogy. He has had coverage that focused on him alone. That qualifies him for passing WP:BIO. Leebot|c 13:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Leebo you are obviously not following my point. I am comparing the content of articles. The fact that space dogs have had "coverage" focused on them does not make them "different" to other ordinary, non-notable, dogs. A dog is a dog is a dog. And a non-entity is a non-entity is a non-entity. One cannot lose site of reality due to misapplication of Wikipedia rules. IZAK 12:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • At what point do you draw the line between saying someone is notable on their own or just one of the participants in something notable? Is a professional athlete notable outside of their team? Many are not, but they still get individual coverage and thus pass WP:BIO. It can't be a subjective question. Leebo T/C 12:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, I'm sure it's possible for a dog to be notable enough to have its own article. However, the notability guidelines for a dog would surely not be identical to those of a man, so I don't think there's any use in comparing the two. If the subject has had articles that focused on him, then he passes the guidelines. Leebo T/C 12:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Avi. There is a world of difference between and article about a person and an article that mentions a person. While Weiss has been mentioned in the news there is not coverage of him as a person. A while ago there was an someone who tried to claim a person had media coverage from the line "the writer of this opinion piece is...". That simply doesn't cut it. As Weiss was not the main subject of any of the articles the author does not engage in the same level of fact checking. Jon513 14:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:BIO explicitly states: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." This is precisely what we've done in the article. Nowhere does that policy ask for articles solely about the person, so this line of argument is utterly irrelevant.  ⇒ bsnowball  16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Response The primary criterion for notability, per WP:BIO, is "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." In WP:BIO TOPIC referes to the PERSON. In this article, all of the notability is in reference to the EVENT. As I said when I nominated this for deletion, the EVENT may well be, and in my opinion, IS notable. But NOT Mr. Weiss. None of these sources are about HIM outside of the EVENT. It really is not that difficult of a differentiation, in my opinion. What about it do you find incorrect? -- Avi 16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The part where you link, inaccurately, the sum total of Weiss' notability with said event, and the inference that someone isn't notable outside the setting for his or her notoriety. Few people could pass WP:BIO under that premise. RGTraynor 17:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Just because there exist articles that should not be in the encyclopedia is not a blanket license for other such articles. On the point whether Weiss is notable outside of the event, I guess we will agree to disagree and let the AfD run its course. Thanks for the reply. -- Avi 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
            • People become notable from what they do, and what events they participate in. He has become notable by participating in the conferences, and by delivering the speech he gave there. This makes him notable, and it is shutting one's eyes to reality that make it possible to think otherwise. He if had merely gone to the concert and said nothing, and if no articles had been written centered around his activities there, then there would be a case. (I think that even then there would have been coverage about him a an individual, because the very fact of someone from his community going there was N, and recognized so in news coverage even before the speech was given.--and that would have made him notable. But after the delivery of the speech, probably every newspaper in the world had an article focused on him--the items given are a very small selection. Articles focused on his individual contribution to the meeting, not just about the meeting. We do not make it less Notable by eliminating the article--what we do, is make ourself unreliable as a source for major newsworthy figures of our own time.
              • There is a possible argument that those newsworthy because of extensive tabloid coverage of trivial events do not merit an article. This was not a trivial event. DGG 23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have bad news. Mr. Weiss and his seven followers have been banned by Neturei Karta itself. See Here. http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/nkcherem.jpg. This puts the already onerous problem about writing that Mr. Weiss is an adherent of Neturei Karta (I always tried to be factually correct and maintained that he CLAIMS to be an adherent of Neturei Karta) but also begs the question as to whether he should be put on the NK article. It would appear that all we can write about him is his name, his age, the amount of his children he has, his claim he is a member of NK, and the ban NK, and the rest of the anti-Zionist and Zionist world imposed on him and his seven followers. Everyone in the know, from the Agudah to the NK calls him a liar, a delusional, a fox in sheep's clothing, etc. He clearly lied to the media. Notable? DavidCharlesII 15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the cheirem makes him MORE notable image:smile.png, I'm afraid. I'm still not sure that I would change my vote, and I won't, but for NK to put someone in cheirem for an anti-Zionist activity is pretty rare. -- Avi 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Read it carefully. Its much more than that. It shows that Mr. Weiss lies to all the sources. 67.81.158.13 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
David, you just don't get it, do you? Whether or not Weiss is the real deal or a con man has not one single thing to do with this AfD. The only grounds for deletion would be on the basis of non-notability or lack of verification of the article's assertions. Avi is quite right; the more verifiable attention the world gives this fellow, the more notable he is. As it happens, under the Wikipedia article for cherem, the pronouncement against Weiss and his followers is one of the two specific incidents used as an example, and one of the only few attributed ones in recent centuries. That's beyond "pretty rare" and well into "nearly unprecedented." RGTraynor 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not Rabbi David. Second, it shows that Mr. Weiss is not a spokesperson for NK. It also demonstrates that he lied to all the sources which form the basis of his notability. 67.81.158.13 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC) So basically you can write an article about how someone fooled the media the president of Iran for a while. I guess articles of that nature can be notable. 67.81.158.13 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your identity, you could disclose the reason why you removed the discussion of sockpuppetry from David's user talk page. If you are not him, it's improper to remove comments from another user's talk page. Leebo T/C 19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I called Rabbi David and told him he should not make mention it. He asked me to do it for him. 71.250.135.242 20:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the only reason I have not entered into the article is that I have no reliable sources for it (yeshivaworld is not reliable; its a blog) and I cannot find the placard anywhere else. -- Avi 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and opposing suggestion to merge. From a strictly policy point, he meets WP:BIO. Sure, the information about the meeting is disproportionate to the rest of the article, but that's just a reason to expand other sections of the article. The sources are about him directly or feature him prominently (even if in relation to the meeting). -- Black Falcon 07:25, 10 March 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.