Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zvi Block

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 Delete per not passing notability criteria. Until(1 == 2) 07:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zvi Block

Zvi Block (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I prodded this article some time ago (may 2006) and it was deleted. It was recreated soon after. I has no sources though there might be stuff in the links. There is nothing in the article which makes him notable though he is moderately accomplished. Jon513 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Jon513 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete While Rabbi Block sounds like a real mensch, he doesn't seem particularly notable, and the article looks like it was copied and pasted from a press release about Rabbi Block. The extremely large number of red links is further indication to me that he's not notable. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Some of the links provided by רח"ק have convinced me that Rabbi Block is somewhat notable. He was included in a PBS chat-fest, he was interviewed by a local newspaper for commentary on the Israeli elections, etc. (I didn't read all the articles.) It's a close call, but I think Rabbi Block is sufficiently notable — but I advised רח"ק to incorporate those sources into the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you try googling him? See these links: [1][2][3]רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 00:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Many of the Google hits seem to be copies of his Wikipedia article or the web sites of organizations with which he is affiliated, but take a look at WP:GOOGLEHITS and read my comment below. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm torn. It seems he has influence in his kiruv circles, but I'm not certain that is enough. I don't see that he is anymore notable than a minister or rabbi from any good sized local congregation. Perhaps that is notable enough though. The article needs to be sourced quickly however, or it should be deleted simply on BLP grounds. My opinion comes down like this - If the spiritual leader of a congregation of 500 belongs on wikipedia, so doe R. Block, but only if we can get some sourced info. Basejumper 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It will be difficult to find sources concerning Rabbi Block on the internet itself because most Orthodox Jews abhor the internet and prohibit or at least discourage its usage. Just as it is difficult to find any information on the internet about any leading Orthodox Rabbi, for example there are only three hits on Google for Rabbi Shaul Brus, Rabbi Eli Chaim Swerdloff, Rabbi Avraham Yehoshua Bick, and other prominent leaders of Orthodoxy. You are welcome to search through the Google results on Zvi Block and source parts of the article on him. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 01:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources to establish Rabbi Block's notability don't have to be on the internet. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not satisfied that this guy has received "significant coverage from independent sources" Corpx 02:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Probable Strong Delete Reviewing the comments here by others I have decided its a good delete case due to notibility. The point made for keeping was, "most Orthodox Jews abhor the internet," hence the lack of currently available sources. This is true, however, most religious Zionists Orthodox use internet extensively, and Aish HaTorah kiruv workers use it extensively too. Seeing that this man is both, yet his presence on the internet is sparce has led to believe he probably is not notable to those outside his immediate circle of contact. (I stand by my statement about a church or synagogue leader of 500. If that deserves an article, I say keep) Basejumper 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep awaiting further sources--its not leading a synagogue that makes one notable, but what one does there, and the involvement with a number of significant activities together is what gives the notability in his case. But it would be good to have independent sources to show it. DGG (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Corpx and Malik Shabazz, it has been deleted before, and his circle of Orthodox do use the internet. --Jayrav 02:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is unfair to make assumptions about his circle of Orthodox. I can tell you right now, that four-fifths of his students and congregants do NOT use the internet. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 06:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, they're all trivial mentions about him. To count for notability, an article from a reliable source has to be about him or mention him significantly. I dont think any of the links do that. Corpx 07:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have skimmed though a good chunk of the links provided by Rachack. A few quotes in the paper in an article about something else is trivial. It is not the same and an article or book or something about him. Look at the article itself. Still even with all those links the vast majority of the article is still unsourced! I stand by my nomination. Jon513 09:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • These links actually prove that he is NN. Thye are no article ABOUT him or things that he has written. And anyone, rabbi, yoga teacher, or marketing specialist, who gives weekly classes has 100's of anouncements. The mentions of him are trivial. --Jayrav 12:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)There also seems to be a strong COI since Rachack is Block's web designer and seeming publicist. --Jayrav 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Jayrav should provide evidence of his COI comment, and if it is true, I suggest a warning to the accused user and maybe maybe a temporary block of a week or a month. It seems that wikipedia Project Judaism has more than its share of COI problems, adverts, and POV pushing individuals and gangs. A consequence might cut down on such things. OTOH, if the charge is not true, it should definitely be removed as it could have negative consequences on the accused user in the future. (IE. People bringing up the false charge everytime he writes an article.) If the charge is false, I would suggest a temporary block on the accuser for incivility. These are just my suggestions, and I'm not an administrator so take 'em or leave 'em. Basejumper 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have already declared my interest in this subject many times, but I feel that from a NPOV I am merely trying to establish his notability. The notability of RZB has already been establish in the previous afd for this article, although that discussion seems to have disappeared from the wiki, this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Judaism#NN_rabbis reflects that former discussion. Notice, how I have never stated that I feel this article should be kept, I am merely commenting on some editor's assumptions that RZB is NN.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • From the Block Beis Medrash webpage- "This page is powered by Blogger and was designed by Reuven Chaim Klein of Klein Web Designs." From the designers homepage and link on his wiki homepage - "Rachack (רח"ק) is the abbreviation of my Hebrew name, Reuven Chaim Klein (ראובּן חיים ק ליין)" --Jayrav 20:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, I never denied that I have a COI. But remember Jayrav, over a year ago you asked crzrussian's opinion on the matter and remember what he said?רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If he did declare his interest than there's no improper coi, but i encourage people to declkare interest often. most edit wars on wikipedia and esp. wikproject judaism happen because of coi problems. Basejumper 08:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • רח"ק, the notability of this article has NOT "already been establish in the previous afd"; there was no former AFD. I placed a {{prod}} tag on it (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion) meaning that the article will be deleted unless anyone objects. It stayed there uncontested for five days, it was then deleted see logs). You later recreated it - which was allow (unlike articles that have gone through AFD, the recreation of a prodded article is like contesting its deletion and is permitted). Now we are discussing - for the first time in an AFD - the notability of the article . Jon513 10:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh sorry, I though it was afd'ed before because I seem to remember there being a discussion about it. I guess I was wrong or it must have been an unofficial discussion. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Given the data and current WP policies, the subject doesn't pass the notability crtiera. HG | Talk 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per רח"ק, multiple Google searches and multiple newpaper articles establish notability.--Yeshivish 06:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The question is not whether he is mentioned, but if he is featured or the subject of the article. If the mentions are not enough to give him a reasonably sized article that is not on violation of BLP rules (meaning nothing unsourced) he is not notable enough for an article. Basejumper 22:04, 24 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.