Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shraga Hager: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:13, 12 September 2007

Shraga Hager

Fails WP:BIO. His unnoteable achievements are unsourced. (His tisch is is in the basemant of Satmar? Enough said.) Yeshivish 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yeshivish 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Yeshivish 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A noted religious leader, worthy of a Wikipedia article. This Jewish Rabbi is equivalent to a Roman Catholic Bishop and there are several such articles. This article satisfies the notability guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (people). To delete it, we must clearly identify which criteria in that article that are not satisfied. Truthanado 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, let's go through Wikipedia:Notability (people) and see if he passes:

"The person has been the subject of published^[1] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.^[2]"? NO

"The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography" ? NO

"The person has received significant recognized awards or honors" ? NO

"The person has demonstrable wide name recognition " ? NO

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.^[3]" ? NO

Has the person any "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" ? NO

Well you might say he is considered a "Creative professional." So let's look at that standard:

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" ? NO

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique"

Has "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" ? NO

"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries" ? NO

--Yeshivish 03:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is YES on all those criteria, the Jewish Press is enough a reliable newspaper to source it for Wikipedia.--יודל 13:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, since you put it that way, Delete. 000 hits Google news archive. (Would you believe it, I get 2 for my real name.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete no significant coverage Corpx 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count well over a hundred results--יודל 13:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A dayan is a significant position, which may be noteworthy. The lack of source is of great concern, but there may be sources which are not online. Jon513 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most dayanim (including Hager) are insignificant. Compare it to the American judicial system where most judges are unnoteworhty. --Yeshivish 23:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but he is also known for hasidic rebbe and spiritual leader not only as a judge--יודל 13:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Changed to Keep - I haven't researched this one yet, but Kosov (Hasidic dynasty), while small compared to Chabad-Lubavitch or Satmar, is a legitimate Hassidic dyanasty with a long history. If the group is notable, then its leader, whom the group regards as an important figure, would seem to be notable as well. It seems to me we should either be deleting both articles (this and Kosov (Hasidic dynasty) or keeping both. The "peers" of a religious figure are the faithful of that individual's denomination, so if the denomination is notable, the leader is as well. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Changed to Keep because it's very clear that the Kossover dynasty while small is notable and deserves its article, and it's been established that Rabbi Hager is its Grand Rabbi and head, hence as head of a notable religious denomination ("denomination" is an inexact analogy) an article is appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. With all due respect, you are wrong. Kosov (Hasidic dynasty) goes back until the beginnings of Chasidus. The dynasty had great and renown leaders. It is, therefore, a no-brainer that the dynasty is notable. However, Shraga Hager just calls himself the Kosover Rebbe. His connections to the dynasty is unknown, and it's possible that there is no connection. It's also likely that there are a bunch more people calling themselves the "Kossover Rebbe" (I don't know how familiar you are with the contemporary rebbes). --Yeshivish 05:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shraga Hager does not just call himself the Kosover Rebbe, he is recognized by the whole Hasidic world with this title, just because the Hasidic newspapers don't publish their reports online and i cannot link to them, it does not mean its unverifiable, if u open the daily Hamodia or Der Yid, Der Blatt or The Zeitung u see him mentioned by this title in every single Jewish controversy, he is the biggest Hasidic rabbi who is also a big Possek, and the article well establishes his connection to the dynasty.--יודל 14:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment The unsubstantiated remark by Yeshivish that that there are a bunch more people calling themselves the "Kossover Rebbe" borders on the scurrilous. The article references a source showing Shraga Hager's patrilineal descent from the founders of and succeeding leaders of the Kosov dynasty. That in itself is probably sufficient to ensure notability. --Redaktor 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Miamite 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep he is the one and ony hasidic Rabbi who has built his own following from scratch and did not inherit any shull, he is a self made very prominent leader and very active and noticeable in Boro Park today, there is 2 Jewish Press links proving this its hard to bring more because most of the newspaper clippings are in Yiddish and not online--יודל 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong Keep'. I will try later (if/when I have time) to bring supporting evidence as to why.--Shmaltz 14:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about you hold your vote until you can provide this evidence? At the moment, other editors cannot assess why Rabbi Hager would be notable. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors who cannot establish his notability is only because they don't consider him notable many and plenty of users do indeed recognize his notability so he does not need to make time to prove it to u again.--יודל 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the moment we have three sources: a blog post and a mention in passing in the Jewish Press. That is insufficient to establish his notability. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a mention in passing, not every Rabbi who marries off his child has a report to make to the news headlines in the Jewish media. He does! Because he is so notable that his daughter's wedding is news, and not only in the Hasidic media, but in a modern orthodox Jewish Newspaper like the Jewish Press. Look for the headline Kosover Galante Chasunah[4]--יודל 14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without prejudice for recreation later if notability is established. John Carter 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I'm really quite astonished that there is even a discussion here. The article makes no sourced or verified claim of notability, even if he is the Rebbe of this sect (and I don't doubt that he is) that does not make him independently notable. He objectively fails nearly every qualification of WP:BIO and simply does not meet criteria for inclusion. For goodness sakes, I come closer to notability under WP guidelines then he does. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeshivish has brought to my attention a major hole in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline--there are no criteria for religious leaders. There are criteria for politicians, athletes, entertainers, and artists. And yet, the head of a notable religious organization would seem notable by virtue of being the head of a notable religious organization. In this case, as a small but notable Hasidic group living largely out of the public eye, it's not surprising that we would find little on the internet about its leader or even the group. Should it really necessitate something like "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" to make a religious leader notable? --MPerel 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agree that religious figures need a notability guideline in their own right. Will try and come up with something. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: A rough early draft started at Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures). Best --Shirahadasha 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a chasidic leader who is proactive in endorsing an internet filtering service, he is immediately notable. --Redaktor 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - He is a very prominent Hasidic Rebbe in Boro Park who helps all kinds of Jews - he feers a very nice tish - he acquired a new synagogue now and will soon move into it Itzik18 17:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yeshivish--Truest blue 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The Kosover Rebbe is a famous Grand Rabbi of the Kosov Hasidic dynasty (Galician roots), very well known all around the Jewish community. --Mibelz 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While the article currently does lack some of the requirements to pass WP:BIO, I am of the opinion that Heads of Chasidic dynasties, in their world/social strata/religious circle in general are sufficiently notable. I would Keep subject to cleanup-better sources provided Avi 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the Kosover are notable, then he is. It is perhaps not the best known dynasty to the non-Hassidim, but it is certainly well-known enough. The analogy above to Bishop is of course not exact, but it does represent the importance. I note that the Jewish Press] is the leading NYC Orthodox newspaper, and a RS, even if Google News is narrow-minded enough not to cover it. Our scope is wider that GN, or even Google. DGG (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mibelz, DGG, and MPerel. Jamie Guinn 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because if he is the Rebbe of the Kosov (Hasidic dynasty) and heads it then he is notable and is important in the world of Hasidic Judaism, a very complex realm -- how they inherit, lead, lose or gain their leadership is often-times covered in the fog of history and inscrutable happenings (the proverbial "Rebbeshe maises") not seen or understood by the outside world. It does not matter where he holds his "tishen" ("public celebrations") and many Hasidic groups and dynasties overlap by marriage and all sorts of complex allaiaes. In any case the "basements" of most Satmar shulls in Brooklyn are often huge halls big enough for wedding celebrations, so perhaps the language in the article needs amending (which I have now fixed), but not deletion based on such an insignificant detail. In addition, the article does cite some links, which in cases like this are very important because the web does NOT have information about this and there are no books and newspapers that "preach" about Hasidim, at the same time that the Hasidic world undergoes rapid growth and expansion which Wikipedia cannot afford to ignore, as long as article are written from a NPOV one can be patient till subsequent editors will improve them. Note: Articles about Hasidic Rebbes, Dynasties and subjects have been written with great care over a great amount of time by many editors with specialized knowledge about the subject. No-one should be hasty to tamper with them without first contacting Judaic studies editors who can verify the contents before jumping to delete the article, which can only harm the development of one of the best NPOV compendiums of knowldge and information about Rebbes and Hasidim of all kinds that is now taking place on Wikipedia. IZAK 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, watch out for WP:OWN. But of course people should not rush to delete articles in areas where they have no knowledge--not that i think this was the case here. DGG (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG: I am well aware of WP:OWN, and in no way do I feel that way. I am neither the creator nor advocate of these type of articles. But I do maintain that because so many people with a specialized knowledge of these matters have gone to the trouble of putting them up on Wikipedia over the years, we should not throw them out on technicalities when this area is so notable yet under-studied and yet with time the articles have grown and improved. We have many editors with a fairly good knowledge of Judaic matters and they should be consulted via talk pages and wherever they may be in order to get good discussion going rather than throwing out perfectly good articles on these notable people that are becoming tremenefdous resources. Let's give this some time and it will get better. Let's ask for sources, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. IZAK 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask IZAK why he pleads for overlooking wikipedia policy and wants us to let all Jewish or Hasidic articles solely because its become a resource and many knowledgeable people from its field have labored on it, but why should we make this only by Hasidic articles isn't Izak's reasoning of begging for leniency applying to all fields of interest? Why is he hasty to jump in to delete Christian articles and when it comes to Jewish stuff he filibusters the pages with arguments that AFD's is not the right process?--יודל 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

foreign language sources The way to use a source in a non-English printed newspaper is to quote the relevant paragraph in translation; or, if there is any doubt about the translation, which is not likely to be the case here, in the original as well. the significance of the whole article can be shown by giving the number of words. DGG (talk) 07:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 ::IZAK, watch out for WP:OWN. But of course people should not rush to delete articles in areas where they have no knowledge--not that i think this was the case here. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 :::Hi DGG: I am well aware of WP:OWN, and in no way do I feel that way. I am neither the creator nor advocate of these type of articles. But I ''do'' maintain that because so many people with a specialized knowledge of these matters have gone to the trouble of putting them up on Wikipedia over the years, we should not throw them out on technicalities when this area is so notable yet under-studied and yet with time the articles have grown and improved. We have many editors with a fairly good knowledge of Judaic matters and they should be consulted via talk pages and wherever they may be in order to get good discussion going rather than throwing out perfectly good articles on these notable people that are becoming tremenefdous resources. Let's give this some time and it will get better. Let's ask for sources, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
+:::: I would like to ask IZAK why he pleads for overlooking wikipedia policy and wants us to let all Jewish or Hasidic articles solely because its become a resource and many knowledgeable people from its field have labored on it, but why should we make this only by Hasidic articles isn't Izak's reasoning of begging for leniency applying to all fields of interest? Why is he hasty to jump in to delete Christian articles and when it comes to Jewish stuff he filibusters the pages with arguments that AFD's is not the right process?--[[User:Yidisheryid|יודל]] 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 *'''foreign language sources''' The way to use a source in a non-English printed newspaper is to quote the relevant paragraph in translation; or, if there is any doubt about the translation, which is not likely to be the case here, in the original as well.  the significance of the whole article can be shown by giving the number of  words. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 07:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)