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. Even with quite a few keep !votes discounted, there appears to be a consensus to keep. Tim Song (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tzvi Berkowitz[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. 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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Tzvi Berkowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has gone through several rounds of prod/deprod, de-peacocking, and notability-tagging, but the concerns of several editors (including myself) remain unresolved. I see the main problem here being that the existing refs lend no support to notability. Specifically, they're all either simple website listings (this one is typical) or brief acknowledgments (this one is typical). Standard Google searching turns up nothing more than the usual web-flotsam (blogs, ratemyprofessors.com page, zoominfo business listing and the like). GS doesn't show any citations to any of his academic writings. On balance, it looks to me that this case does not satisfy notability requirements, so I thought I'd bring it here for a broader evaluation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: Absolutely no "blogs, ratemyprofessors.com page, zoominfo business listing and the like" are used as references or citations in the article, altho they do add suitable credence to the fact that this subject is notable enough and more than merely "exists" as alleged by the nominator at Talk:Tzvi Berkowitz. IZAK (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we both know that that's not what I said – please, please stop the semantic games. Rather, I explained my good-faith effort to locate sources through the standard channels and basically what came up fell into 2 categories: non substantive hits to pages like his entry at ratemyprofessors.com, and pages related to what appear to be a relative's legal problems that happen to incidentally mention his name as well. The latter were not added to the article as sources for obvious reasons. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. I'm not seeing a claim of notability in the article. Google Books and Scholar reveals only acknowledgements. There are many articles on Talmudic scholars on Wikipedia, and their contributions are well-covered by Google. Any claim that this field is too obscure to make a notability judgement is invalid. Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The references section of this article provides no hint of notability, nor does a Google check.Change vote to Keep—see below.

While Orthodox rabbis generally don't get "press" on the internet, this page really needs to add some evidence of notability from books or newspapers to justify its existence. I think what's going on here is that someone is trying to populate the Template:Ner Yisroel box with every rabbi who teaches at Ner Yisroel, producing quite a few red links. This is not what's being done with other yeshivas; for example, see Template:Mir Yeshiva, where the roshei yeshiva and assorted "famous lecturers" who are notable enough to have their own page are the only ones included in the template box. Yoninah (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yoninah: I was the one to create the Ner Yisroel template. It is not a plot. There are very few rabbis on it, even with the few red links on it, that in any case refer to the most senior and most famous rabbis there who are its most important rabbinical figures and not, as you incorrectly say "with every rabbi who teaches at Ner Yisroel" which is patently false. Some of the names are of the most famous deceased ones in any case. As for why other yeshivas don't have templates for their faculties, it's not a praise, it's because there are few editors from that sector who can do it, but you are reading the situation backwards, the facts that there is "no template" does not prove that other templates are faulty for existing, on the contrary the lack of such templates calls out for the creation of them that would help identifying and navigating important faculty members. There are not many famous yeshivas and once rabbis attain a position in them, they automatically attain a high level of notability. IZAK (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep. I apologize for my ignorance of East Coast yeshivas. I just did a quick look around some blogs, and reread the article. Anyone who is the son-in-law of Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky and in a senior position at Ner Yisroel is certainly notable in the academic world. I agree with IZAK and Yodamace1 that WP:PROF #6 applies here. Yoninah (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The applicable guideline here I believe is WP:PROF and R' Berkowitz does not pass. If someone can suggest under what set of criterion he passes WP:N I am all ears. Joe407 (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Because: (1) This article is about the highest-level and senior lecturer in Talmud, (second in rank only to its rosh yeshiva) at the world famous Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore, MD., USA, an elite degree-granting institution, in addition to training and ordaining other rabbis, and one of the oldest and among only a handful of its kind in the USA. (2) In the world of Orthodox Judaism, particularly Haredi Judaism, this is one of the most prestigious and notably rare lecturing positions that very few attain or hold. That in itself makes the subject notable and qualify for WP:N, even were he not to have other sources online or in print about his life. (3) This is similar to being the head of a secular or academic prestigious think tank or university, the appointment itself creates notability. (4) The article was created almost two years ago [1] and was not questioned. Recently it was questioned and prodded and I took the time to improve it and find a number of about ten good citations for it that for an article of this sort would normally be more than sufficient for WP:RS and WP:CITE purposes (now belittled and demeaned by the nominator) that raise it way above the level of a mere stub and making into the start of a fairly good WP:BIO. (5) The original discussions took place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Notable? One user who had questioned and one prodded it, then evidently accepted the improvements and then added their tweaks in subsequent approval [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]. But for some unknown reason the nominator of this AfD got involved and was determined to attack it, citing technicalities about "insufficient sources" that he asserted only proved that the subject merely "existed" but revealing that he had no insight into the context and subject matter of this article that he now wishes to see deleted. A lengthy discussion between us has ensued at Talk:Tzvi Berkowitz that is worth reading given that he has now seen fit to nominate this article for deletion in the midst of that discussion. (6) The nominator should recuse himself and cancel this nomination as he is an involved party to the dispute as to the notability of this subject given his comments on the above talk page. (7) I have improved the article and found at least ten reliable places online where the subject's notability and importance is stated, some in Jewish newspapers and online websites, beyond any shadow of a doubt for those familiar with the Haredi yeshiva world in the United States. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: Recently there was a discussion similar to this one, about how attaining one of the top positions in a world famous yeshiva creates notability in and of itself and the result was "keep", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Weinberg. IZAK (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is very little reason to delete this topic. The rabbi is a very prominent scholar in his field. Just because that field is esoteric and not widely discussed in the media does not make the rabbi's contribution to the field irrelevant nor his stature within that field unnoticeable by either the segment of those who study Talmud nor members of Wikipedia who are well versed in it and most capable of contributing to Wikipedia about the topic.Guy Montag (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Prominent haredi talmudist despite lack of secondary academic/journalistic literature. Fits notability by requirement #6 --Yodamace1 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User admits that there are no secondary sources for the subject, so their notvote really says "Delete". Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abductive is incorrect. I did not say "no secondary sources." I wrote that there is a lack, e.g. a deficiency. --Yodamace1 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Saudi Arabian footballers. Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What does this mean? Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means I am going to delete Abdullaziz Al-Dosari as there are no secondary sources for this non-notable subject. Chesdovi (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I have created an article on a Saudi footballer, Nawaf Al Abed, and I thought this might have been an oblique reference to that. I encourage you to nominate articles on non-notable subjects for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And are you going to explain to me why 20yr old Nawaf Al Abed is more notable than the good rabbi? Was it that 2 second non-goal? Chesdovi (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because of that goal, but the only thing that matters is coverage in secondary sources, and WP:ATHLETE, a subsection of WP:Notability. Again, I urge you to find footballers who fail WP:N and nominate them for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATH: "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition are notable as they have achieved the "status" of participating at the highest level of football. - Yipee. Chesdovi (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per .Guy Montag above. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 11:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is not a vote. Without commentary this notvote is a notvote. Abductive (reasoning) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Abductive, please WP:AGF that users know what they are talking about. Kindly allow this AfD to progress without interfering with the "votes" you don't like (whatever you may wish to call them, they are still referred to as votes and cannot be negated by your hostile running commentary). The article has adequate sources. I have stated the main arguments to keep this article and please reply to that. Your repetitive comments fighting each of the "keep" votes is harassment and easily borders on WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Lay off and let the closing admin decide the merits of the case because you are not the chief judge and lord high executioner in this case. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with Abductive here. All of a sudden this article had a batch of completely inane votes based on WP:OTHERSTUFF (yours) and WP:MAJORITY (most of the others). They add nothing to the discussion and should be avoided; we need verifiable reasons why he's important enough to warrant an article, not just more Wikipedia editors saying so without explaining why. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but I count 11 distinct posts by Abductive here. I myself agree with one of them, but are you agreeing with some or all of the seven above, or all or some of the four below, or some combination? I just want to make sure I'm following precisely where everyone stands, and even if we had not be in new wp-beta mode, it would shortly begin to become slightly challenging on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Abductive's "AFD is not a vote" comments, repeated several times. I have not yet formulated an opinion about the merits of the actual article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Abductive could have cast his vote, which thus far he hasn't done, and then made whatever comments he liked within that. Instead he chose to set himself up the uncalled for "judge" of other users' votes and comments. IZAK (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Guy and IZAK. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IZAK, Guy, AND Chesdovi. Avi (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important and notable personality backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Per Izak, above. A couple of points. First, I'm the one who first questioned whether this bio was notable, at the wikiproject. Which led to it being brought here. And which led to improvement in the article. Second point -- and this isn't meant to be BITEy, though as he is not a newbie Abductive should certainly know better. Abductive does not understand what "per" means, when used by editors at AfDs. It means, long-hand, "I agree for the reasons stated articulately by editor X, to whom I refer, and believe that it would do no service to simply repeat that editor's points, or re-state the points in inferior manner, so please treat my !vote as being based on the rationale editor X has stated quite well above". It is not by any means a "notvote", nor is it a !vote lacking a rationale, as our friend improperly charges. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, at least IZAK has joined me in making asses of ourselves by posting the same comment multiple times. Abductive (reasoning) 01:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Appreciate the self-deprecation. WP needs more of that.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Abductive: Actually I was responding to your highly unusual seemingly "OCD" repetitive posts (when you could have just cast one vote and commented within it on everyone else's) so I responded in kind. I do not normally feel the need to cut-and-paste responses/comments/opinions/messages so many times on one page within one AfD yet, to get my point across anywhere the way you have done so here. If you agree to strike or delete yours and limit it to one, then I will gladly do likewise, giving this page a more normal character for what is supposed to be going on at a WP:AFD. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok. Abductive (reasoning) 06:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ok" what? Could you elaborate please Abductive. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Rav Berkowitz non-notable?! Is this a joke? Within the Chareidi religious community he is a very big name. Given the conversation that I'm seeing here, I'm really having a hard time adhering to WP:AGF. This is a spurious AFD. Nmagedman (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems that one of the problems that people outside of the Haredi spectrum are having is that most Haredi rabbis function well-below the fanfare of the media and academic circles that in no way detracts from their status and fame as genuinely notable Torah and Talmudic scholars and personalities in those circles that value their attributes most. While it may frustrate some Wikipedian purists who are obsessed with technicalities alone, those editors who are familiar with the domain of Talmudic studies and current notable Torah scholars in the USA do not merely require or await the validation of outside secular sources. Sometimes there has to be a partial dose of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to create decent articles about important people and events. If this was an ordinary pulpit rabbi, a minor author with the title rabbi, or even a local well-known personality it would not matter. But this is major, relatively young, living scholar acknowledged as such by his peers and in his domain. Wikipedia needs to note that and have articles about such personalities, and not impose tough artificial statutes that cut off its nose to spite its face. The positive spirit of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built is as important if not more so in cases like this. Articles need to be allowed to evolve and input should be sought from specialists. When serious voices of objection are raised from seasoned editors familiar with the subject there does not have to be a rush to delete just as a show of obstinacy. Careful consideration of what is being said is called for. The sources provided thus far are a good start. They may not be perfect but they do reliably point to a major personality, no doubt about it. In years to come they could be beefed up some more, but sources in and of themselves do not create the reality of who this person is and what his standing is. IZAK (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia biographies must have better sources than local websites. When a scholar does not have the attention of the world, news articles, they are not ready for a biography yet. MiRroar (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MiRoar: Your concerns are appreciated and this is not the first time Judaic editors have to grapple with this challenge, but please note these two big points: (A) User Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) had once noted [7] in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller that: "...Religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. 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..." and the same applies here. (B) You have hit upon a huge dilemma perhaps without realizing it. I would say that you lack two fundamental insights into modern-day Haredi life in general, especially to those in Israel, that pertain to your question. One is that Haredim and their leaders do not function like Western leaders. They literally despise the media and the academic world. They do not allow their children to study secular studies. That is just a fact one must accept about them and their chosen lifestyle. The second factor is that they are vehemently opposed to the Internet and certainly to any form of mass publicity through it, and they have outright banned its presence in Jewish homes and allow it only very sparingly for business purposes under very tightly controlled environments. Parents are warned that their children will be kicked out of yeshivas if they allow them any Internet access. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. This is the same way that they have dealt with TVs in homes for decades with great success as no-one wishes to defy these rabbis and face social ostracism in those communities that they preside over. The net result of all this is that you will often find very little information on the Web about some of the presently most notable and highly-regarded rabbis, Hasidic rebbes and Jewish sages. Thus one must often rely on the barest of crumbs that would minimally satisfy Wikipedia's standards and criteria for how to verify notability. There is also the odd phenomenon on Wikipedia that some persons who are actually rogue "rabbis" and may have no standing in any Jewish community, can get articles because of the publicity that has been generated about them, but truly humble publicity-shy personalities may get shunted aside in the media blizzard. Actually, Haredi rabbis would probably be very happy that no articles are written about him anywhere on the Internet and certainly not on Wikipedia, so even though the author of this original article may be blocked from Wikipedia, he was actually sticking his neck out and taking a huge risk writing up any article about such a notable rabbi. So these kinds of situations require great care and inspection so that one does miss the forest for the trees. Thanks for giving this your considered attention. IZAK (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two questions asked in good faith: (1) is this the type of source you refer to above when you say "religious sources and media of notable religious organizations are perfectly acceptable reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures"?, and (2) how exactly do your assertions of the fairly extreme luddite nature of these communities square with the observation that there are indeed lots of web references like the one just mentioned? It seems to me that if matters were in fact that extreme, we would find absolutely nothing on the web: no ratemyprofessors.com page, no zoominfo.com page, no e-zine adverts, no self-authored web content, no photos on flickr, etc. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. I trust IZAK that this is an important person within his community. But the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not importance, but notability: can his significance be verifiably documented through reliably published third-party sources? The sourcing in this article is very poor, and I was unable to find much better in a Google news archive search. So I am left only with the word of our subject-expert editors that he is important, and while I believe them I don't think that should be sufficient grounds for inclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per IZAK's points. I take particular note of the notes in the article indicating that younger notable rabbis cite R. Berkowitz as an authoritative source for teachings--the traditional measure of notability in rabbinical circles going back at least to the Talmud. So I am reasonably convinced that he is a notable figure. Having said this, I would hope that over time the article can be improved by some indications about the content of his thought and influence. But that is a matter for editing, not AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Yeshivas Ner Yisroel or Delete. Article contains no claim of notability that is backed up by secondary sources (and hardly any claim of notability at all). For example, one "reference" has "(I heard this from my teacher R. Moshe Eisemann, of the Ner Israel Yeshiva, Baltimore, I believe in the name of R. Tzvi Berkowitz, also of Ner Israel.)" This parenthetical note is not a secondary source which analyzes the subject, but instead is the very definition of a "trivial mention". The article is strung together with original research to compensate for the lack of sources. All the keep arguments rely on the most insidious kinds of special pleading, all the while admitting that the sources aren't sufficient. One user says that "Anyone who is the son-in-law of Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky..." must be notable, even though Notability is NOT inherited. No sources are presented to bolster the claim that all rabbis at his institutional level are notable. Finally, I note that the article lacks the most important thing; any description of what scholarly contribution(s) the rabbi has made. Not one word of his wisdom is related. Without this sort of infomation there is nothing encyclopedic to say, and therefore no reason to have an article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per IZAK, and I must say I do not remeber agreeing with him before. We are not talking about "a lecturer", we are talking about the top lecturer, who has been in a major position for decades, in one of the oldest, most prominent, and unique Yeshivot in the world. (I have not attended the institution, but I have lived for many years in Baltimore.) If Ner Israel properly follows Jewish tradition and does not churn out tons of publicity, that is not to its detriment.Mzk1 (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.