Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 27 December 2007

24 December 2007

Daniel Malakov

Daniel Malakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Notable Eileivgyrt (talk) 00:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) --> Page was deleted by User:Coredesat relying on lack of WP:Notability arguments of User:DGG which were not valid. Neither Coredesat nor DGG defended their points of view. No consensus was reached prior to deletion.

• comment My point of view as expressed at the AfD was that if additional sources became available, a proper article could possibly be made--the objectivity of the one submitted was altogether impossible. It's in the cache if anyone wants to look at it. And I note that Eileivgyrt has copied the text onto his or her user page--I'll let someone else delete it. Incidentally, the AfD was singularly refreshing, for it is the first time anyone ever said that I had " a prolific record of summarily dispatching Misplaced Pages pages to oblivion on that basis ". Would be an excellent holiday present for me--except that it really is more than a little sad, for I dont want to figure out just where the POV is coming from. DGG (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Uphold I'm an uninvolved user I believe, but this AfD looks like it was done by the book and reflects the consensus of the community, as judged by the closing admin. Mbisanz (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion, there was a clear consensus to delete despite multiple arguments to keep by the nominator. I will speedily delete the nominator's user page per G4. --Coredesat 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way, I was the closer of the AFD; the AFD close is not itself an argument. --Coredesat 04:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, once you note that the "maintainer" of the article !voted eight times, the consensus is quite clear. And also, imho, quite correct, per WP:BLP1E. --Stormie (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion since the AfD was properly closed based on consensus. The key problem with the page is that being murdered doesn't make you notable. There are a lot of sources and there is the possibility of a Murder of Daniel Malakov article meeting the notability requirements. My suggestion is work one up in your user space and then seek advice. BlueValour (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. There is a slim chance that the person is notable for having been murdered, or more likely that the murder itself is notable, its drama having gripped New York for a couple weeks and raising some important issues about mental illnesss. However, we are too soon after the event to know if anything lasting will come of this. More importantly, the entire article is so poorly matched to the style of things we write here that it's probably completely unsalvageable. It is really a summary of news articles, written for the present time, with the emphasis on sifting through all the speculation of who did what and what happened. The whole thing will be out of date in another month, and still in need of a complete rewrite. Kudos to those who did take stewardship over the article and tried to clean it up, but after 2-3 weeks of trying, and five days after promising they were doing so during the deletion discussion, the article remained an utter mess. If someone wants to write a new article I don't see why not, but that ought to follow our guidelines and conventions about articles. And it is probably a futile effort. I have my doubts whether it's even possible to show notability at this point.Wikidemo (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The only keep arguments were 8 keep arguments from the original author, one weak keep, and one by Mandsford that I still don't understand no matter how many times I have read it, but it doesn't seem based in policy at all. Is the nom here seriously arguments based in policy over lack of notability should be ignored? As for DGG having a "hot hand at deletions" is probably one of the more laughable things I've seen...from my experiences with him, if there are doubts about an article, he tends to err on the side of inclusion, not deletion. Not that he's always right, but if he's arguing for a deletion...then it's probably something that should be deleted. --Smashville 18:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reverse deletion Eileivgyrt (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Moved to talk page --Coredesat 10:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Your nomination is understood to be an argument to undelete - this tirade of bad faith is not necessary. I moved it to the talk page to make this page more manageable for other DRVs. --Coredesat 10:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed I have real questions of Misplaced Pages policy regarding the deletion by User:Coredesat of my statement (in favor of overturn in re: deletion of Daniel Malakov) from the main WP:DRV page during the WP:DRV-mandated five-day period, especially as there is little evidence that my statement has been taken into consideration (as needed for a legitimate consensus). Have expressed in good faith at User_talk:Coredesat#Deletion_of_Daniel_Malakov. Would appreciate response in kind. Eileivgyrt (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• endorse deletion for now per Wikidemo. I also have concerns due to Misplaced Pages not being news and possible WP:BLP/privacy concerns related to the custody dispute which would be enough to justify an AfD by itself. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion though this should be revived in future if the press coverage continues. Lobojo (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm having an issue with the nominator's accusations of bad faith against admins for doing their duties as admins. And with the essay length responses. Be concise, please. --Smashville 23:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have asked User:Smashville at his User Talk page to clarify his concerns so that I may address them or understand my transgression and await his kind response. Eileivgyrt (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I will answer your concerns right here to the questions you asked on my talk page right here.

1. I never said that admin should be immune from criticism. I said you continue to assume bad faith. You accuse the two admins of having an agenda and of basically conspiring to delete as many articles as possible and tell one that he has a "hot hand for deletion" because he deletes expired prods and articles tagged for speedy deletion by others. You act like he has an agenda because he is doing his duty as an admin. DGG's deletion log is open and available to everyone. Anyone can open it and see that this "secret deletion spree" or whatever does not exist. Accusing either one of them of having an agenda for doing the procedural duties of an admin is not even remotely acceptable.

2. Yes, you should be concise. This is an encyclopedia. The entire point is to have a large amount of information in a concise form. It's the way things work around here. The response I'm writing now is considered by most Wikipedians to be long and many won't read it. Do you not see the problem with posting a 2,500 word response to DRV or 3,500 words of responses to the AFD? You claim it's because it's a cogent set of arguments, but it's not. You provide no evidence whatsoever as to why the AfD was handled improperly other than to accuse the admin of bad faith, accuse established Wikipedians of not knowing what a consensus is, you bring up a new argument that is suitable for AfD (and would be ignored because it isn't couched in any policy) that somehow being the victim of domestic violence makes you notable, and random various nonsense that doesn't apply to the DRV.

3. How on earth is my username inciting/promoting violence? --Smashville 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, compare Daniel Malakov to Nancy Kissel, a different case in which the wife was convicted of murder of her husband (with a Misplaced Pages page).Eileivgyrt (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument to justify whether this page should be restored. --Coredesat 10:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Gentle User:Coredesat, I most certainly agree, that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument to overturn deletion. On the other hand, quid pro quo, neither WP:BLP nor WP:Notability is a clearcut argument to uphold deletion. Accordingly, wouldn't it be a simple matter to (at very little cost to you) to humor me by making the comparison? Maybe you favor deleting Nancy Kissel as well? (Others deserving of your attention might be Pamela Smart and Mary Winkler.) Eileivgyrt (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Lack of notability is not a reason for deletion? Are you kidding me. Again...WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument to justify inclusion. --Smashville 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming Out at Christmas (closed)

Moreno Valley Mall

Moreno Valley Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Page was Speedily deleted when consensus was clearly no consensus. Once the size and (unusual) fact that on duty police officers provide security for the facility, all delete opinions halted. Exit2DOS2000 19:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

*Endorse deletion but not as closed. First off, I don't agree with the speedy deletion; the page has some content albeit minimal. However, the debate could reasonably have been closed as delete. The raw !vote count, including the nomination, was 5-3 for delete but, since this is not a vote, more importantly of course is the debate. The argument of the deleters was that there was insufficient material to make an encyclopaedic page and that the sources failed to meet WP:N. The keepers failed to address this effectively with only the police security being cited. In my view it would be a reasonable position for a closer to take to decide that this was insufficient to overcome the deleters' case. BlueValour (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Overturn - my turn to change my mind persuaded by W.marsh. BlueValour (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• • This is apparently an AFD where both the participants and closer dropped the ball, but there are sufficient sources, as far as I can tell. It's a 1+ million square foot regional mall... of considerable importance to a local economy and thus reported on. See , a lot of these do not seem to be trivial mentions at all... they are regional papers writing prose articles about the mall. --W.marsh 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist.Neutral Speedy is inappropriate. One function of listing articles is that editors have a chance to clean them up and add citations. If you speedy something for lack of sources that never happens. When it is listed, anyone who wants to keep the article can choose among these. It seems to be a notable mall, though apparently for being a failure.Wikidemo (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the reason why I didn't suggest a relist was that the AfD was, in fact, open for over seven days so it was not actually speedy deleted! The timescale for closure allowed full time for discussion and sourcing which makes the deletion grounds all the more curious. BlueValour (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me. I'll change my opinion to neutral, then. I do think it's a possibly notable mall but the article wasn't sourced properly. There's so little to the article that anyone who wants it will have an easier time simply recreating it with some of the sources from my google news list than going about overturning and relisting the deletion.Wikidemo (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Are we to stick to the letter of the guidelines, or their spirit? At what point was a CSD ever mentioned ? Not in the nomination nor any of the discussions. That course of action had no consensus. The first it was mentioned was at closing, where there is no possibility of refuting its applicability. Please recreate and let the Afd do what it was supposed to do, and not let it be taken over by an Admin wanting to do something that has not been discussed. Many, many many of Tenpoundhammers nominations contain the statement 'A search online turned up no reliable soures', well the simple fact that some had shown up shows that others were prooving that fact incorrect, then came christmas :) Exit2DOS2000 22:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion blatantly incorrect application of A1, the letter and the spirit both. There was enough context that a reasonable reader would (and I'm sure the closer did) know what the article was about. This seems to have been a "I don't like it" close. --W.marsh 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Nah, I don't really have a strong opinion on the malls. If you review my edit history, I closed another mall article a few minutes earlier keeping it. But thanks for the assumption of good faith. ;) - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. --W.marsh 15:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion there is a clear consensus that super-regional malls, those with more than 800,000 square feet of gross leasable area are inherently notable, and this mall exceeds 1 million square feet, clearly meeting these criteria. As there was an active AfD with valid claims of notability offered as justification for retention of the article, CSD A1 would not apply. As the speedy deletion was done entirely out of process and in violation of Misplaced Pages policy, the deletion should be overturned and the article retained. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether an AfD is in progress or not doesn't affect if CSD criteria can be applied. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - not a speedy, and especially not when there was some support in the afd for keeping it. Ridiculous deletion.--Doc 02:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Howdy - As the speedy deleter, I should note that I also eat babies. Delicious delicious babies. The discussion was open a week, and I was going through old AfDs and found this one. There wasn't a clear consensus, but when I viewed the article itself, it was clear that it had no usable context. I'd be more than happy to restore this to someone's userspace if they'd be willing to take it over and bring it up to article standards. I just need a volunteer. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why on earth did you tag it as a CSD A1 speedy deletion instead of just closing the AfD and saying consensus was to delete? This could hardly be a more inappropriate A1 speedy. --Stormie (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • A1 calls for not enough content to even tell what the article is about... that you knew it was a mall article means it wasn't A1. Stuff like infoboxes, and prose that provides enough context to identify the subject, is usable content. --W.marsh 14:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The most pathetic aspect is that the admin who speedy deleted the article treats the whole thing as a gigantic joke. Eating babies is just an annoying habit; deleting articles with no apparent understanding of Misplaced Pages policy and then having a big chuckle about it looks like a deliberate WP:POINT. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - particulars aside, I really don't think bypassing disagreement is an appropriate use of the CSD process. We have CSD to speed up uncontroversial deletions, not to overcome resistance in deleting articles. — xDanielx /_C\ 10:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Hmmm: So, no volunteers? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• I volunteered when I added the WP:RS's to the original Article. Nobody has asked for Userfication, we simply ask for AfD's to be closed properly, as consensus her seems to believe that this one was not been. What you eat on your own time is your business. How you close AfD's is everyones business. Exit2DOS2000 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• • As it already met "article standards", no work is necessary to avoid a proper application of speedy deletion. --W.marsh 04:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. can be used as a source, as can . --NE2 19:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, I'm still not big on this page being kept, but A1 was not a good choice here. ALSO, NE2 seems to have found some good sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 03:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Question Why not just re-create the article? It couldn't have been that big, and the info in there can easily be scooped out. For the record, I believe the admin should not have speedied this of his own accord, the proper thing to do if you're an admin and feel something is a speedy is to tag it, and let another admin delete it. Second pair of eyes, you know. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Naftali Tzvi Weisz

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)

•  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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • Wrong, not in this case. This is now a common principle applied Misplaced Pages-wide. Daniel 01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      • 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)
      • (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)
  • 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)
• "Important article about highly notable person" that is a bit of a strech, don't you think?--Tom 18:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
• Overturn and Keep WP:BLP has to be one of the most abused policies in the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy. As the closing administrators actions are in clear opposition to basic and fundamental Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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)
• Endorse deletion per closer.--Doc 02:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The admin closing the AfD, did the right thing and based on existing policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Keep because any Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty automatically qualifies for Misplaced Pages 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)
  • You claim that "any Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty automatically qualifies for Misplaced Pages notablity" Since when has that automatically conferred notability upon a person? Picaroon (t) 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Even if you believe that not every Rebbe of an important Hasidic dynasty automatically qualifies for Misplaced Pages 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)
      • The article was not speedily deleted for the subject being non-notable. --Stormie (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
            • 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 Misplaced Pages's standards and criteria for how to verify notability. There is also the odd phenomenon on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, so even though the author of this original article may be blocked from Misplaced Pages, 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)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —IZAK (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages policy. Alansohn (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 2007-12-25 14:51:21 (UTC)
    • 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)

      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)

break

• 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages: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)
• Endorse deletion as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

    • 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)
    • 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)

• Endorse deletion per closer.--Shmaltz (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger to Spinka (Hasidic dynasty)

Moved to Misplaced Pages 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)

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)

• Keep deleted per Uncle G. Rebecca (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Kord (band)

Kord (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was deleted without verify the reliable sources, even if the article is able for being notable and the content of article Kord (band) is very notable. In the content of the article were some reliable sources which i've checked them and were very reliable. So, please check again and restore the article Kord (band) and article Stefan Corbu too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.168.220.29 (talk • contribs) many thanks

• Remain Deleted - having checked the google cache of the page, the only source was the band's site. Fosnez (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - an entirely clear close. The way forward is for the nominator to research and create a sourced article in his user space and then request undeletion. BlueValour (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim Jagielski (closed)