Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 June 19

19 June 2006

True Torah Jews

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Torah Jews

Bloger would like to dispute my closure of the above AfD, but since he is inexperienced with undeletion policy, I volunteered to submit a DRV on his behalf. The following is his first argument on my talk page:

The TTJ is regularly featured in the two Yiddish newspapers “Der Yid” and “Der Blot” that are the official newspapers of the two satmar factions (the Aron’s and Zalmons) and for that matter the most notable Yiddish newspaper with a combined readership of tens of thousands (not counting the forward which is considered modern by a lot of Hassidic Jews). The question is would it be considered a verification of TTJ works and structure if it is spelled out in the above newspapers?

If yes, I would be more than glad to present such writings and let the Yiddish speaking and reading editors here, confirm the content.

However I would need more time to do just that, since they don’t publish the newspaper on the web I would need to contact them, go to there office and get a hold of the articles.

Bloger 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He has since submitted a PDF (in Hebrew) which he says displays the notability of TTJ because it is mentioned in a notable publication, and provided a translation at User:Bloger/True Torah Jews notability. He has this to say about the PDF (here):

It’s an article that was printed in the satmar - Zalman Teitelbaum faction - newspaper Der Yid at the time of the Israeli election’s when the group TTJ under its Yiddish and Hebrew name “Natrina”(I’m awaiting) published a pamphlet with the teachings of the satmar (rabbi Joel Teitelbaum of blessed memory) against participating in the election’s.

No vote from me, as the original AfD closer. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse without prejudice: Essentially, the AfD's result was clear. Now, the reasoning for most of the delete voters was that there was an issue of verifiability. The creator of the article believes that he will be able to verify. In that case, the best course would be for him to recreate with a note on the talk page that the recreation answered objections to the previous AfD when he has the verification. Now, me, I think that a relist, even with verification, will fail, as I think that the voters would have moved from verifiability to notability. The author should work on the article in user space until he feels that he has verifiability and attesting to significance covered and then make it an article. In the meantime, though, this deletion was according ot guideline. Geogre 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse precisely as per Geogre. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - correct closure of Afd. Btw, I want to support nom's action to helpout new users. --WinHunter ^(talk) 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I just want to make sure that Bloger feels like he's getting a fair shake. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Admirable sentiments. Just zis Guy you know? 11:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - as per Geogre. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• So I want to understand clearly, did I advance the case on verifiability, and I now have to make the case for notability? Bloger 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Verifiability means that it be proven (usually online) that the subject exists. Notability basically asks whether a topic is notable (popular) enough to be included on Wikipedia. Some topics are too obscure to merit an article on Wikipedia. Making a case of notability means that people are asking you to prove whether TTJ is notable (popular) enough to be included. This usually means that a lot of people or articles mention TTJ, that TTJ has historical significance, or that TTJ has a web site that is very popular (usually shown by having lots of Google hits or a high Alexa rank, though there are other ways to tell this). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I understood that, the question is did i advance on verifiability? Bloger 20:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
      • (CCed from his talk page) I think you advanced a little bit on verifiability, but it would really help if you can find an online source in English that says "True Torah Jews" that we can verify. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand the concerns of the editors and I will try to address them.

On the concern of verifiability:

As per the definition by Deathphoenix quote:

“Verifiability means that it be proven (usually online) that the subject exists”

I think it’s understood that at least for a minimum the article in “Der Yid” I posted and translated has addressed it to the extend that we now know that this organization exists at all, and its outside of a few people with a website, but rather it’s an organization that does much more then host a site as is put out in the newspaper article.

About the concern of notability:

Again as per Deathphoenix who has put out three possibilities on being notable.

1) That a lot of people or articles mention TTJ.

2) That TTJ has historical significance.

3) That TTJ has a web site that is very popular (usually shown by having lots of Google hits or a high Alexa rank,

And was wider elaborated by Geogre quote:

“Some web sites are so significant that they have an impact on the world. How do we determine if a particular web site is one of those? Well, there are a lot of ways, but one of them is how many hits a day the site gets”

I’ll start with # 2):

Firstly, It’s my opinion, – because it’s opposite of conventional wisdom –, Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism – in a non political manner which may be the case in reform Jewish communities – but rather in a biblical founded manner is something of historical significance given that its common belief in the world that Orthodox Jews are “all” staunch supporters of the state of Israel (and many in fact are) so anything proving otherwise is of historical significance.

Secondly, the position of satmar on any mater (related to religious subjects) given that satmar is one of the – if not the – biggest Orthodox Jewish Hasidic group with an Estimated 100,000 to 120,000 members is of historical significance.

In other words, if satmar should have an opinion on - let’s say - a major issue in Jewish-Christian relations it’s of historical significance given that it’s the opinion of some 100,000 thousand people in the Jewish religion.

The point being, that as I somewhat established in the article discussion page – although without unanimous consent – that the group TTJ is the de-facto podium of satmar in the non-satmar world given that other then this, satmar doesn’t have another avenue of featuring there opinion on the matter in the non satmar environment.

The above said, its can be clamed that TTJ is not just another group but rather it’s satmar and satmar is notable as per historical significance as said above.

Now to # 3:

This is a bit complicated firstly, because when one checks the “Alexa rank” for a site like TTJ one cannot compare it to any other site, because for example, sure the Drudge Report or CNN are going to have a better rank then a site talking about Botswana in South Africa because there are many more people interested in politics and news then in Botswana, the strength of the above sites is that between there pairs they rank well for example CNN ranks better then FOX, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, the same with drudge.

Secondly, Now once we have established that we have another hurdle we have to determine if the subject talked about in these sites are notable for example if a certain family has a few sites and one of them is ten-fold more popular between the family members then the rest doesn’t mean it made an impact and is wikipedia notable because its only that immediate family that is being impacted by them.

Thirdly, how is an impact measured? For example, Amazon or eBay cannot be satisfied if the same amount of people that visit the most popular info site come by and look at there site for info only the goal is for people to buy stuff on these sits not come there for info.

Therefore, once it’s established that:

1) The issue of Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism is a wikipedia notable subject. 2) The goal of the TTJ is to inform people on the subject, which is achieved, by people visiting there site and reading the info.

Than we can measure this site according to the other sites of the same subject and with the same goal.

On that scale, the site of the TTJ outperformed its nearest competitors in a big way the sites of the Neturei Karta www.nkusa.org , www.jewsnotzionists.org .The TTJ has reached at its highest point (in ’04) to almost 100 on the daily reach while the others have reached only up to about a 38 on the first one and a 30 for the second one.

This is to say that on the goal of reaching the world it did have a big impact and is popular, which makes it notable.

Bloger 00:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - for all the words I read above this line, there are no new reliable sources brought forth that mention this organisation/website/whatever. All I read are the words of someone reporting things first-hand, which Wikipedia editors cannot do. No new information = no compelling reason to overturn a satisfactory AfD closure = keep deleted. Kimchi.sg 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Restore. I have heard about these beliefs before, although I didn't know the group's name. It's a minority viewpoint, but it seems to have some reference value. Having an article for this group is like having articles on all the registered political parties in somewhere mildly obscure like Estonia: encyclopedic but not fascinating. (I recognize that this is not a political party, of course.) In short, it belongs in Wikipedia, at least as a stub. TruthbringerToronto 05:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sick Nick Mondo

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sick Nick Mondo

The decision of delete has led to the article causing problems among wrestling notability requirements as the wrestler in question, Nick Mondo, has had a DVD about his wrestling career released and is filming documentaries on wrestling. He is also, among the indy and hardcore wrestling scenes, considered especially notable. The article has then been pointed to as a sort of "if Nick Mondo wasn't worthy of an article then X isn't worth either". Another issue is the article already exists at Nick Mondo and can't be made into a redirect because it was protected. --- Lid 10:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Merge contents of Sick Nick Mondo into Nick Mondo and redirect. The existence of the article at Nick Mondo was not mentioned on the AfD, and as such it is reasonble to presume the voters in this low-participation AfD were not aware of it. Both "Nick" and "Sick Nick" articles contain assertions of notablity, but there are different ones such that I feel there is information to merge. I think a redirect from one to the other would be fine, I take the "do not redirect" comment in the afd to be referring to earlier suggestion that it should be redirected to Brownian motion. Redirects from nicknames are standard practice - see Category:Redirects from alternate names, I don't think the redirect will need protecting. Thryduulf 12:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Following Rossami's comments below about timing, which I admit I neglected to look at, I endorse the closure as valid at the time of closure, but additional information has been provided and there should be no prejudice against a sourced, notable article. Once the information has been merged, there should be no prejudice against a deletion nomination if it is still felt he is not notable enough. While an article that exists about this person, a redirect is apropriate, per my previous comments. If the article is deleted the redirect can be deleted per CSD R1 - the normal course of events. Thryduulf 08:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge anything useful into Nick Mondo. This information wasn't presented in the original AfD, and certainly seems to be a valid merge target. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure per Rossami's information. I obviously didn't look deeply enough into the timing of everything. Duh. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn and merge - sometimes things slip through the cracks and this seems to be such case. Doc Tropics 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Change to Endorse closure - heh, I didn't think to actually look at dates<Wipes egg off face> Thanks to Rossami for a learning experience. Doc Tropics 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• The Sick Nick Mondo article was deleted as the result of an AFD decision on 16 May 2006 (and re-deleted on 26 May). The Nick Mondo article was first created on 17 June. The Nick Mondo article is therefore re-created content. (It could not have been mentioned in the AFD discussion because it did not exist at the time.) Reviewing the versions, I consider the newest version to be sufficiently different that it probably does not qualify for the speedy-deletion criteria. However, the core concern of the first deletion decision remains unanswered. I find no new evidence to convince me that the previous decision was obviously wrong. Endorse closure of the "Sick Nick" deletion discussion pending an immediate AFD discussion of the new version. If and only if the new version is kept, then undelete the old version and allow the redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Rossami. Metamagician3000 07:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the original Sick Nick Mondo decision; should Nick Mondo come up for AfD I'm pretty sure it'd pass through, because in addition to his body of work in CZW, he's become a video game character, too. I'm adding links to the article now. Once Nick Mondo is AfD'd or not, there should either be a redirect from Sick Nick Mondo to Nick Mondo or the article currently in residence at Nick should be moved to Sick Nick. Try saying THAT three times fast.  RasputinAXP  c 10:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)