- Naftali Tzvi Weisz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Important article about highly notable person deleted out of process, against consensus and policy. Speedily deleted after appx 13 hours on claimed BLP violation despite nearly unanimous opinion to keep; I do not have the article to look at but those who participated in the AfD said that the only problem was a well-sourced statements made about some kind of fraud investigation Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: To the closer of this debate, please note that per the Arbitration Committee ruling, a consensus must exist to overturn for the article to be undeleted. If there is no consensus to overturn, the debate, per the decision linked before, is required to be closed as "endorse deletion". Daniel 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a silly process. If the deletion is upheld, I or someone else will simply recreate the article in a way that doesn't violate BLP. An article that does not violate BLP would never lose an AfD vote and I cannot imagine ArbCom objecting. So what are we accomplishing here by endorsing improper out-of-process deletions? Wikidemo (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The rulings of a particular Arbcom case apply only to that case and do not set precedents for other cases, so the closing admin should disregard the above note. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 00:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, not in this case. This is now a common principle applied Wikipedia-wide. Daniel 01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, it's inappropriate and ought to stop. The "news" objection in a biography isn't a reasonable reason for administrators to delete articles in violation of consensus. Wikidemo (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict) If it's a common principle then I don't know why you refer to its noble origins when you bring it up. Whatever legitimacy this principle has comes from the degree to which the community, not the Arbcom, continues to endorse it. Also if it is a common principle then by definition it is not necessary to point out over and over. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any policy regarding undeletion has to be set at WP:DP, which is beyond the scope of ArbCom. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Important article about highly notable person" that is a bit of a strech, don't you think?--Tom 18:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I should have checked my facts. I had thought he was head of a large movement. He's not; it's a relatively small sect, so I've stricken the overstatement. Wikidemo (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't an important article. It wasn't an encyclopedia article at all. (This was pointed out by two of the editors in the AFD discussion.) It was a news report in the wrong project. It was a news article reporting the single event of a group of people being arrested, which editors were trying to pass off as a biographical encyclopaedia article about one of those people in particular. It was utterly unsalveagable; the claims made by the editors opining that the article should not be deleted are not borne out by actually reading the sources. When one reads the sources one sees that those arguments were, to put it very kindly, an extreme stretch of what the sources in fact were.
It should be obvious that an arrest should not be the sole content of a biographical article in an encyclopaedia, that it does not even constitute a good stub biography, and that the article should be zapped and begun again, if it can be. (As I said in the closure: I looked for sources documenting this person. If I'd found any, I'd have written a good stub.) Moreover, since there is no case yet, there is no subject to refactor the article to be about instead of being about a single person. There's nothing precluding editors writing biographical encyclopaedia articles, but resurrecting this content does not achieve that. Editors wanting to write a biography of this person must make more of an effort to write proper biographies. It is ironic that, despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical article about xem can even be started. Our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy says that biographies must be neutral, accurate, and verifiable. Implicit is the notion that they must actually be biographies. It also says that they must be encyclopaedic. This is an encyclopaedia. Please do your journalism in a newspaper. If you are going to write encyclopaedia articles, write them properly. They are not news reports. Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fine opinion but it is your opinion, and the clear majority of those offering well-reasoned opinions in the AfD discussion disagree. As the reviewing administrator aren't you supposed to honor consensus - and only there, after a proper discussion? Poor writing, failure to demonstrate notability, or being a news article, are not grounds for speedy deletion. The consensus emerging after 13 hours was that this individual is notable as the leader of a Jewish sect, and that the arrest and allegations of fraud are well sourced (they did happen, clearly) and relevant to his notability. He was running a charity that is accused of bilking people out of tens of millions of dollars - and his notability has to do with running that charity in the first place. I don't know all the claimed sourcing or BLP problems because the article is not available to review, but even if everything else has to be removed one can say: xxxxx is the rabbi of the yyyy sect (add dates, descriptions, heredity and description of sect - that's in the Spinka article). On zzz, after an investigation by aaaa, he was arrested and chraged with (claim). That much material is obviously there.Wikidemo (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out above, and I point out again: Despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical article about xem, such as you are describing here, can even be started. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is in no way an opinion of his in any way, but it's clear Policy. The way the article was written it was just a news story under a claimed WP article for one persons name. Thats it, and thats why it was deleted as it should have been. Wikidemo keeps repeating that s/he didn't see the article, then please stop arguing about it. It was a news article and thats why I nominated it. I have nothing against a good written biography that has the content that was in there as well (with some slight mods), although it seems that the person that deleted it doesn't want it even in that context.--Shmaltz (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That policy is not clear to me. In fact it is clear to me that policy is against deleting the article. So, by that reasoning I should speedily recreate the article, right? I think you're mixing up policy with interpretations. Interpretations of policy and how they apply to given situations are matters of consensus, and why we have a deliberative process here. By the way, please don't tell me what I am allowed to have an opinion on. If I'm not allowed to discuss an article without seeing it, then for goodness sakes reinstate the article or email me a copy and let me take a look at it. Wikidemo (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason you can find no detils on his is because you can neither read Yiddish newspapers in which he mentioned on a regular basis, nor can can see the english language Haredi press in which he is also a regular feature, since they boycott the internet. But in a classic wikipeida way, you assume that if it is not online it does not exist. This was pointed out during the discussion that you so rudely interupted. Note that editors that know the subject know full well that he is notable, and a few even wrote to the efect that they regretted having to admit that he was notable, but he clearly is. Lobojo (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I made no assumptions of that form. But I did watch your response to a request for sources. It was, as here, to simply assert that other editors were being disingenuous and "knew full well" that this person was notable, an argument that holds no water at all, and not to actually respond to the request by citing some sources. If you had cited some sources giving biographical details of this person's life, you'd have had the makings of a good stub. But, as I pointed out above and I point out again: Despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical article about xem can even be started. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As everyone else here has asserted, notabilty was amply asserted already. You are asking for evidence of notablitiy before the arrests which is an entirely different thing. Notablity had been asserted by the 15 articles cited. You speedied the article because "it is a news article plain and simple". You can only speedy articles when no notabilty is established. You cant speedy artilces that are on AFD for this reason. As an admin your view would have carried weight if had just involved yourself in the discussion - but you didn't. You speedied an artilce, which asserted notablity, during an AfD. You have made a mistake and wasted everybodys time. Lobojo (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep or merge into the main Spinka article. The actions of the admin here show disregard for the opinions of others here in a most shameless way. I remind him, that he closed early after votes from some of the most experience wikipedians that there are, with a collective edit count in the six-figures. The article was not a news story, but gathered information from 15 different news stories on the man and the charges against him. These sources included 1000+ words by-lines articles in both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times amongst others. There are no real BLP issues here, just potential secondary ones - problems that do NOT justify deletion out of process, especially when (for Christ's sake) such experienced editors had just voted to keep! I would not have objected, if this admin had say argued that it should be renamed to "Spinka Tax Arrests" or something - I would even have supported that idea. He claims (and this is where he errs fundamentally) that he didn't do this because the people have only been charged, not convicted. There is nothing in wikipedia that justifies this argument. This is an entirely specious dichotomy. This article should be recreated immediately in this way, this would be a compromise that almost everybody would support. You see this is why process needs to be followed, because when people get all exited all they do is create massive dramas over things that they simply could have argued about in an AFD and reached consensus, now we have waste everyones time, and for what? Egos. Good grief! A major Hasidic Rebbe is arrested on racketeering charges by the FBI, it is covered in ALL the main newspapers at length, yet it is somehow a BLP violation to cite these sources anywhere in wikipedia? Lobojo (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename I believe I was the only one to vote to delete it. That was done on the BLP concern that we have a an article purporting to be a bio, when 90% of the article is discussing this one bad thing an individual did once in his life. I'll agree that the close and delete were counter to consensus and therefore, probably counter to policy. Could I suggest an article titled the name of the alleged act "XX theft" or "Group name financial scandal". That would be less of a BLP to me, since it would no longer purport to be a neutral bio of a person, but an article describing a notable scandal. Mbisanz (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over the debate, I much prefer bringing it back at "Spinka Tax Fraud Scandal" than deleting this otherwise sourced info. Mbisanz (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have sources yet that describe any such scandal. We don't have sources documenting a case, a scandal, or anything else. As I said in the closure, if we had a publicly documented case, I'd have renamed the article. But there is nothing apart from solely reports of six arrests. A publicly documented subject for an encyclopaedia article doesn't actually exist, yet. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You again make this arbitrary distinction between "charges" and "conviction". There is so such distincition. Notable things on wikipedia are things that have "multiple non-trivial sources". These "things" can include convictions, arrests or a "Series of tubes". Lobojo (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the issue there should be no problem. New York Times is certainly a reliable source, and there can be no doubt that a much publicized indictment of eight individuals and five charitable religious organizations by federal official on tax charges involving international money laundering of tens of millions of dollars is a scandal.Wikidemo (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right. Also note the actual wording of the BLP policy states "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Even an allegation is not disregared if it is sourced! Let alone FBI charges. Lobojo (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep WP:BLP has to be one of the most abused policies in the Wikipedia admins arsenal, essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT on steroids. Any information in an article that might be deemed to be negative in any way, shape or form? Just whip out the speedy delete function and ignore any process that might actually address the problem. As discussed by nearly all AfD participants, Rabbi Weisz is independently notable as a Hasidic religious leader, even without details of his arrest. Even if the closing admin had a valid basis to complain about WP:BLP issues, the simple solution is to tag the article and/or turn it into a stub. Deleting the article in the face of strong claims of notability, clearly cited at AfD, and in direct opposition to a strong consensus to keep, is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. As the closing administrators actions are in clear opposition to basic and fundamental Wikipedia policy, the deletion should be overturned and the article retained. Any genuine WP:BLP issues should be tagged, discussed and addressed at the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep notable as a major hasidic leader in any case. The article should have been there even before this. And that takes care of every possible problem, for it isnt one issue notability, the negative information is securely documented from multiple RSs, and--for that matter--the indictment is sufficiently notable that it would pass not news in any case, even if the guy weren't notable anyway. The policy is that one-issue notability is dependent on circumstances. It's a policy that we can delete in those circumstances, even if there are the 2 RSs that would otherwise be enough for a keep. it does not say that we must do so. Totally invalid extension of BLP. I urge the deleting admin to reverse himself and save the drama. It's OK to make a bad decision, but if the consensus of all the various people here and at ANB says you are wrong, you should acknowledge it. I note that even those reluctant to support negative articles on such figures supported this one. DGG (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per closer.--Docg 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion The admin closing the AfD, did the right thing and based on existing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep because any Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty automatically qualifies for Wikipedia notablity (even if it initiallly becomes a two sentence ((Judaism-bio-stub)) of which there are many hundreds in Category:Jewish biography stubs!) It is not easy obtaining good biographical material right away, but it can be done. The mere fact that this rabbi is the undisputed head of the Spinka (Hasidic dynasty) is in and of itself proof that he is a notable personage. Yes, it is true, that starting an article based only current events is controversial and problematic, but the response to that should be a request to expand the article and not to zap it out of existence. There were already a number of very experienced editors, including some admins, who had voted to keep the article (a strong majority of users had voted to keep it when it was suddenly prodded and deleted against consensus) and it was highly insulting and demeaning to over-ride them when they were at least following due process. Somewhere, somehow, something does not sit right with this arbitrary deletion out of nowhere and it should be investigated further. Thanks you, IZAK (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim that "any Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty automatically qualifies for Wikipedia notablity" Since when has that automatically conferred notability upon a person? Picaroon (t) 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you believe that not every Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty automatically qualifies for Wikipedia notability, the fact that the claim was made in the first sentence of the article definitively rebuts the rationalization for deletion by an admin who cannot justify deletion as a speedy in this case. Inherently notable or not, the strong claim of notability means that there is no valid case for speedy deletion. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was not speedily deleted for the subject being non-notable. --Stormie (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, if the objection to the article was that it was too "newsy" then it should have then been reduced to a ((Judaism-bio-stub)), with even a sentence or two about this Rebbe now, and that could be filled-in later by an editor who knows this kind of stuff, and with the disputed material moved to its talk page for further discussion as to suitability, but the prod and delete out of the blue was compeletly out of line and against what was heppening and what should have been done. In other words, this prod was a big mistake. IZAK (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out above, and I point out again: Despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical encyclopedia article about xem, such as you are describing here, can even be started. You still have made no effort do so yourself, even here. You can start a proper biography if you have such sources. Speedy deletion doesn't preclude starting a substantially different article, and an actual biography would be a substantially different article, because the article as it was was not a biography at all, not even a good stub. But a good stub biographical article requires sources. You've had several days now, and have cited none at all. I wasn't able to find any, either. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out above, and I point out again, that there was not a single prod on your part, and you know that to be the case since it has been pointed out to you on talk page 2 days ago. I don't know why you continue to claim that you made any prods. You would have done well to have simply put a unsourced tag on the articles, or one saying "this artilce does not establish notablity" like everyone else would have done. Editors here and on the AfD asserted that he is notable for both his position and the charges. Lobojo (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To Uncle G: 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, 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, rabbis such Rabbi Weisz would surely 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) 10:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —IZAK (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per Uncle G's closing statement and his additional comments at ANI and here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, Uncle G gave an excellent and clear summation of his reasons for deletion in his closure of the AfD discussion, and I can find no fault with them. I would certainly encourage IZAK to create a fresh bio stub on Rabbi Weisz but the article that was deleted was not the basis for such a stub. Sorry, I know it can be frustrating, but WP:BLP is an extremely serious policy and enforcement of it is by no means "arbitrary deletion out of nowhere". --Stormie (talk) 13:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin speciously claimed he was "unable to find any actual biographical information on this person after doing some research", when in fact the lead of the article provided the clearest possible claim of notability. Every single one of the sources, including the press release from the United States Attorney's Office, referred to the article's subject as "The Grand Rabbi of Spinka" providing clear evidence of notability, even if the material regarding the alleged crimes was ignored and deleted. Even if the pathetic excuse of WP:BLP issues had the thinnest veneer of validity, the fact that there is a strong claim of notability would be justification would require an admin to remove the items that offended his delicate sensitivities and turn the article into a stub. The fact that User:Uncle_G declared himself judge, jury and executioner, ignored clear claims of notability stated in the article and in the supporting sources included in the article, and ignored the clearest possible consensus for retention in the AfD is evidence of the most fundamental disregard for Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out above, and I point out again: Despite several proddings on my and other editors' parts, no editor claiming that this person is notable has come up with a single biographical source from which a good stub biographical encyclopedia article about xem, such as you are describing here, can even be started. You still have made no effort do so yourself, even here. I have made an effort to do so, as I said in the closure, but couldn't find anything. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was asserted and it remains so that there are plenty of other sources but they are not online, not that others were needed to assert notablity. All the 15 sources that are not enough for you describe someone as the "Grand Rabbi of Spinka" (born 1959) of Boro Park, amogst other details. So you entirly wrong, and you certainly were in no position to delete the article, especially considering that you spoke to no other admins about it (or did you...) know nothing about the subject and other seniopr editors had voted to keep. Your opinion is worth no more than anybody elses, you could have blanked/stubified and made these points in the AfD like everybody else. But to speedy delete, you needed much stroger grounds even that those you claim here, and those grounds you certainly didn't have and you knew it at the time, which is why you immediatly posted to both the ANI and the BLP noticeboard to get your defence in first. Which begs the question, why didn't you post there first to get some suggestions on what people thought of your proposed deletion? Oh and by the way there were no proddings on your behalf, but that is besides the point. Lobojo (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, BLP is a very serious policy, but if the NYT and other national newspapers report the accusation, it meets the requirements--the sourcing is impeccable. BLP shuld be enforced strictly, but narrowly, or we will end up deleting all negative bios. The closest thing I can find is 4.3 "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.", But the word is "unlikely" , not "never" In this case, the NYT is sufficient to show the true notability & reverse the presumption. . I've suggested clarification of 4.3 at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 2007-12-25 14:51:21
- Quite right DGG. BLP is being abused here, and the added flexibility that admins were given in this policy is being taken advantage of. You don't like something, so you shoehorn your objections into a "BLP issue" and then you have a free hand do whatever you want without fear of censure. In this case it was so clearly not a BLP issue (which he should have fixed by stubifying/merging in any case) that he had to add the extra trick of WP:NOTNEWS.
Also note that BLP was not the issue (since there are so many top-grade sources). In his clear confusion, the closing admin deleted the article (as opposed to say merge it elsewhere, as policy would dictate) on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS. "Not the News" is not policy it is an "essay", like WP:DICK. For him to speedy the article on the such flimsy grounds against the consensus that was emerging was a clear error on his part, he has caused a massive waste of time all round, and certainly cannot be argued to have any grounds in policy. He knew the actions he took were out-of-order, which is why he made preemptive posts to the ANI and BLP boards. I like IZAK have strong suspicions that there is more to this that meets the eye (indeed I pretty much know there is), something which has been confirmed by the second group of 3 senior editors/admins to post here within about 20 minutes of each other, all basically just saying "endorse, per nom". I don't think it is pushing the boat out too much to express my suspicion that there is some kind of off-wiki canvassing going on. Lobojo (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, but WP:NOT#NEWS is policy and says much the same. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, in fact it says "News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial" And you don't get more substantial that 1000 word by-lined articles in both the NYT and the LAT. Not to mention, he was notable in anycase, just nobody bothered to make an article. Lobojo (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lobojo it seems that you have come to a point where you are yelling: don't confuse me with facts, I have already made up my mind, what you quoted is about sources, the policy is about what WP is NOT (hence the WP:NOT shortcut) and the delete article meets the criteria of what WP is NOT.--Shmaltz (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lobojo why do I see your comments here as a double standard with your arguments on this deletion? Is it possible you have a motive behind both? and it really has nothing to do with good faith editing?--Shmaltz (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am reluctant to respond to this weakest of weak points, I recommended there that it go to wikitionary where it belongs, there is no analogy between people are phraseology. I you want to play such games I might have asked you why you voted "Strong Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shraga Hager, when clearly a Rebbe who gives a tish in the basement at Satmar and has no actual Shul of his own is far less notable that this one. But I didn't because that is off-topic. Lobojo (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Continue AfD (otherwise Keep) Tthe facts that (a) everyone agrees the charities he was running were collecting tens of millions of dollars (legitimately or not); (b) articles in highly reliable sources like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times mentioned not only his arrest but also described his past background; and (c) he was already mentioned in the existing article on the Spinka (Hasidic dynasty); should all give some hint that the claim he is non-notable independent of a news event, whatever its ultimate merits after discussion, isn't so obviously and overwhelmingly correct as to justify a speedy delete that overrides an ongoing AfD discussion. My own view is that this individual, while not necessarily "highly" notable, is notable by standard policy criteria. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I acknowledge that the arbcom ruling gives any administrator the right to delete an article if in the administrator's sole judgment the article violates WP:BLP and that the claimed WP:BLP violation here involves WP:BLP#Articles about people notable only for one event. The difficulty here is that notability for a figure like the rebbe of a Hassidic group is not necessarily obvious to any admin because the question of what sources in the field are reliable etc. does require a certain amount of expertise. We've generally taken the view that when Hassidic dynastes are notable, as the Spinka dynasty definitely is, their rebbes are also notable. Further, the individual received extensive coverage for who he was, not just what he did. As I understand it, the arbcomm ruling does not preclude the following two-step process for dealing with a figure of this type: (a) create an article without mentioning the news story and submit it to AfD without the news story (b) if it passes, the news story can then be added since there will be a community consensus that the individual is independently notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirahadasha (talk • contribs) 2007-12-25 18:55:27
- Comment It is not clear to me the arbcom case cited is controlling here. The arbcom case involved a minor who was a victim of other people's activity and who had no colorable claim of independent notability. This case involves an adult who is not alleged to be a victim and who has some basis for being independently notable. The arbcom cautioned that Wikipedians should not be "legalistic" and insist that subjects who are unquestionably not independently notable should nonetheless go through AfD on pure "process" grounds. This is simply not a case of being legalistic or unquestionable non-notability. This a case where in addition to the news event being impeccably sourced, there is a genuine dispute and a colorable claim that the subject has independent notability. The impeccable sourcing means that there's no possibility of legal liability here, and both the existence of independent notability and the seriousness of the news event makes clear that there is no possibility that reporting the matter would be considered unethical, which is what the arbcom dispute was fundamentally about. This case is far beyond both the facts and the stated policy basis of the arbcom decision. I don't think that arbcom intended arbitrary administrator judgment to extend this far. I'm not intending to suggest User:Uncle G would fall in such a category, but would we want an administrator whose contributions consist primarily of comic books summarily deleting articles on non-famous but notable philosophers or scientists over the protests of established philosophy and science editors because they are reported to have gotten into a traffic accident or had a run-in with the law? With no balance we risk the tail wagging the dog here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This, like Alansohn's "ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject" argument in the AFD discussion, is an argument that one discovers to be quite false when one actually reads the cited articles. Hsu, in the Los Angeles Times, actually does not describe this person's past background at all anywhere in the article. Go and read it. The only thing that it says about this person is that xe resides (present tense) in Brooklyn.
There's actually just as much information in the cited news stories (i.e. age, occupation, and place of residence) about, say, the banker from Tel Aviv as there is about this person. Yet no-one is creating an article on the banker arguing that there are "ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject", or asserting that we should have a purported biography of that banker that comprises solely this news report of xyr arrest. The simple fact is that these sources don't support good stub biographical encyclopaedia articles for any of the named arrestees, and there's nothing been provided from which such articles can even be started. The fact that this news story reporting a group of people being arrested is being misrepresented as a biography of just one of those arrestees, in addition to the failure to cite sources when repeatedly challenged to do so over a period of several days now, only serves to further undermine the arguments made by Alansohn, Lobojo, and others. Clearly, this content isn't an attempt to begin a biography. It's news story reportage, and it's news story reportage that unjustly attaches that news story to just one single person. As I said before, the place to do journalism is the newspaper. This is the encyclopaedia. If you can create a biographical encyclopaedia article without the news story, sourced to actual biographical coverage of this person (which none of the sources yet cited have been, which I have been unable to find, and which no editor arguing in favour of keeping or undeletion has shown to exist either, despite repeated proddings) you'll have created the good stub biographical article that I keep referring to. Speedy deletion does not preclude that. But no-one has demonstrated that such a good stub can even be started, and I couldn't find any sources for doing so when I tried to start a good stub, as I said in the closure. Instead, some editors want Wikipedia to permanently pillory a single person because they have a news story, about some arrests being made, to publish. I suggest reading the "definitive and factual" test outlined in Wikipedia:Avoiding harm and considering whether a news story that reports arrests and charges that have yet to be even proven, is suitable biographical content for an encyclopaedia that only includes things after they have been fact checked, proven, and publicly documented. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Avoiding harm is clearly labeled as an essay. I would recommend not citing even to guidelines, let alone essays, as it might tend to give the impression of a lack of policy basis. Speedy deletion requires a policy basis. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is nothing more than "Your opinion". "Your opinion" does NOT give you right to Speedy articles that are under discussion at AfD, there are very specific circumstances in which that is justifiable. There were 15 sources that explicitly established notability. You are asking you sources when there are plently which you deleted. I did say that he knew that he was notable and you know what he responded? He conceded that his "his job is", which rather makes my point. But this is all irrelevant in any case, since you should have engaged in the discussion, something you claim you did, but the record shows that you didn't. At least now you engage. Here are the sources that establish notablity and precluded you from justifiably speedying the article: The JTA "The head of the Hasidic Spinka sect was arrested in Los Angeles"; NYT "The grand rabbi of Spinka, a Brooklyn-based Hasidic sect. . . Naftali Tzi Weisz, 59.. . Five Spinka charitable organizations in Brooklyn named as defendants"; Brooklyn Eagle: "Rabbi Naftali Tzi Weisz, 59, of Brooklyn . . .grand rabbi of a Hasidic Jewish sect called Spinka and runs several Brooklyn-based charities associated with the group, including Yeshiva Spinka and the Central Rabbinical Seminary. Both are based on 56th Street in Borough Park. the scam began in 1996 and ran through the beginning of this year, involving millions of dollars in bogus donations. The charities are also named in the indictment"; The indicment "Grand Rabbi Naftali Tzi Weisz, 59; and so on. Do no harm? This is just a essay neither a "policy or guideline", so when you are pushed into a corner you are forced to resort to this, no doubt your belief in this essay is the actual explaination for why you refused to stubify/merge/rename/redirect/blank. How was the article "permanently pilorying him" any more that the NYT or the LAT or the other sources. Wikiepedia is not WP:CENSORED, the BLP policies were brought in to deal with libel issues, and you are amongst those who abuse this policy to censure WP:V and notable information because you don't like it, or you think "do no harm" should be policy but know that it will never happen. The beauty of wikipedia is that as new sources come in, telling us that the charges have been dropped we will have it here. While there will never be an addendum to the NYT article saying "oh by the way the charges were dropped 3 months later and the FBI apologized." Lobojo (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There were seven individuals listed in the indictment, only one of whom -- Rabbi Weisz -- was chosen as the subject of an article, for the very clear reason that someone cited in the indictment and in the associated sources provided in the article as "Grand Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Weisz", the recognized religious leader of a notable religious community, is an individual with a clear claim of notability. While the article was lacking in biographical details to support the claim, the claim of notability is inarguable. Yet we get the same BS from the closing admin that he was unable to find any such claim. There were several options available to a rational closing admin with the most basic respect for the collaborative process of building an encyclopedia: tag the non-existent WP:BLP issues that are claimed to exist; turn the article into a stub; or merge the content into another article, such as the Spinka (Hasidic dynasty) article, as I have suggested. That User:Uncle_G chose to ignore the clear claim of notability and carefully selected the most disruptive option of speedy deletion, spitting in the face of clear consensus to the contrary, is evidence of showboating self-aggrandizement rather than any effort to deal with a real issue. Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per closer.--Shmaltz (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed merger to Spinka (Hasidic dynasty)
- Moved to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 24
- Overturn, relist I agree that if left unchanged the version of the article discussed during the AfD should have been deleted under WP:BLP at the end of the discussion, as it failed to establish the first assertion of notability, namely that Rebbe Weisz was a notable religious leader before the incident detailed in the article. But AfD is not a discussion on the current version -- it is a discussion on whether a feasible article can be written based on the sources, including the sources discovered during the process. During an AfD discussion the remedies for BLP-violating versions include page blanking, stubifying and protection, but not speedy deletion, which is reserved for attack pages. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. Speedy deletion is just as much a remedy as page blanking. Moreover, speedy deletion does not preclude the creation of a substantially different article, as an article that is actually a biographical encyclopaedia article would be in this case. This was not a biographical article, in any way. It was not the basis even for a stub. Its speedy deletion does not preclude the creation of a good stub, once editors actually cite some biographical sources that document this person's life. But as you yourself state, it does not stand as one in the stead of that work being done. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This arguenment is entirly bogus Uncle G, you were not at liberty to use these remedies. There are 1500 admins here. If everyone of them felt that they could speedy artilces based on personal whim and misreadings of abrcom dicisions AfD would become a chaos, indeed, it would turn out like this. There were a number of very good options avaliable to you as mentioned by almost everyone here. You are an expirienced admin on AfDs and must have known that your action would be disputed and was needless, indeed we know that you knew this would be the result from you preemtive postings to ANI and BLP. This is the kind of action that people who have strong POV opinions on articles take in order to get their way. But there is no reason to suspect you of this, so the question is why you did it. Why couldn't you have just blanked/stubified the page and deleted the bad histories? The mind just boggles. Lobojo (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure a merge would be the best solution here. The reason is we have no evidence the indictment etc. is attributable to the Spinka Hassidim as a group and putting it in the Spinka article itself, except for a brief mention, could tend to suggest collective responsibility. If the speedy delete is not overturned, I would prefer to create separate articles on the event and the rebbe with the arrest etc. listed only in the See also so that all notability is independent. If both survive AfD independently, we could discuss merging the two. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and Keep He is a 'grand Rabbi', every Jewish user knows that this isn't a normal title, it is a huge position and status in our society. - and for the admin to speedy delete against consensus, and declare 'openly' (thanks) that he sees a grand rabbi the same Notable as a Tal Aviv Banker, is alarming of his ignorance on this subject matter, and gives us very much insight and understanding how and why he can dismiss consensus so easy. If we let such an admin continue to speedy delete articles against the wish of consensus, there is no hope for our project. There was 15 sources of independent media citations stating that he is an importent notable Jewish Leader, and the closing Admin has said that since it isn't a Biography article only a newspaper article thats why it isn't good, i disagree, if we had all biographies there is no need for another biography, i strongly urge the community to not let such an act pass by in silence--יודל (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted per Uncle G. Rebecca (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Uncle G is correct about this being a news story about an event rather than an actual biography of a person. I do disagree with one point that Uncle G makes: It's irrelevant that the subject has not been convicted. Arrest is noteworthy enough. Any subject of a Wikipedia biography article who is arrested on a serious charge should have that arrest noted in the article, regardless of the eventual outcome in court. Also, it does seem odd to me that, if this person is so important in his community, no local newspaper coverage exists that delves beyond the arrest. Anyone with a library card can usually get into NewsBank or some similar database for articles that aren't in GoogleNews or otherwise available online. It wouldn't surprise me if an article meeting Uncle G's legitimate objections could be created. Noroton (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure (keep deleted). The closer's rationale was well-explained and solidly based in policy. The article as it was written did not meet Wikipedia standards and formed no reasonable basis for a better article. That said, I find no prejudice in that closure against a properly encyclopedic article that documents the accomplishments of a notable person. But that news article was just not encyclopedic. Rossami (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion Note that DRV is not a rerun of AfD as some people seem to think here. The question here is did the admin correctly read consensus and did they correctly apply policy? Those are the only two considerations at DRV that are relevant to changing a result. The answer to me is yes to both. Orderinchaos 10:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The article was a coatrack for the news story. This is not Wikinews. The closing admin made the right call. However, if any editor would like to create an article about him which is encyclopedic, I see no reason why it should not be allowed. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure - The individuals in question appear to have gone out of their way to prevent us from finding any reliable, verifiable sources of information from which to create a biographic article. As such, there's no way to satisfy WP:BLP in this matter. -- Kesh (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and continue AfD Certainly there are problems here. The juxtaposition of the contents of the article and the article's title doesn't jive. The contents may belong better under a different title, e.g. Spinka money laundering scandal. Or maybe the scandal isn't notable enough for coverage, as the standard of notability for "news stories" is higher than it is for most topics. However we need an AfD or article Talk discussion to look into those issues; DRV isn't the place for it and speedy deletion certainly isn't. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
