The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 08:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berel Wein[edit]

It looks like a vanity project to me. While he does come up with many Google hits, they are all commercial in nature. The article is poorly written and reads like a commercial to me. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Poorly written yes, but better to tag the page for references etc... and wait for someone knowledgable to expand and make encyclopediac. I can't read through [172K Google hits] but can see at least a dozen books by him.Peripitus 12:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep absolutely! This is not the first time a poorly-written article has been written as a first draft about a famous person. Rabbi Berel Wein is unquestionably one of the world's best known Orthodox rabbis. The reason there are commercial links attached to his name is that he is an international lecturer and celebrity (doesn't Madonna have commercial links?), he has written many books, and he is sought out by many people for his popular tapes and CDs. He had an important career and history as a noted rabbi and yeshiva dean not related to his later commercial successes. This vote is uncalled for and the nominator obviously knows less than nothing about the subject of the article and its related content. People should stick to their areas of expertise and not stick their noses into subjects just because they do a Google search and use that as their standard of whatever it is they think they have learned. IZAK 12:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously Rabbi Wein is a well-known man, and having information on this website is helpful to people who want information on everything. The fact that a Google search would turn up "commercial" results speaks to the fact that Rabbi Wein is contemporary: his writings are just coming out. Lets have as much information as possible Drboisclair 12:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep X 3. (1) As an author alone he qualifies (having over 5000 book distributed). (2) As a well known influential rabbi, he is also notable. (3) He is also VERY notable as being an orthodox rabbi and Jewish historian, and one of the few people qualified to give an authentic orthodox perspective on historical issues. For any one of the above reasons he is notable, with all three there is not question. Jon513 13:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Amazon shows [1] that he's a notable author, and as such deserves a Keep SPEEDY KEEP. Vizjim 13:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a good deal more notable than many of the Southern Baptists we are unable to delete. Just zis Guy you know? 13:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (A) First of all, justified afd. I'd like everyone to take a step back and pretend that this Rabbi (who I've never heard of living in Israel) was someone else, perhaps another clergy from another religion. Would the article, written as it is, be acceptable, credible, and justified to pass afd? I've seen other similarly 'famous' people and organizations deleted. (B) If someone is not going to take the time to fix up the article in the very near future, then delete. 1) We have no evidence of 5000 books written, 2) "There, he founded a synagogue, and later, a Yeshiva, which he ran for 20 years" names please?, 3) "VERY notable", "well-known"? Please add external links to non-puff articles written about him to prove this. (C) The unilateral removal of the afd tag is very suspicious of that editor's intentions. You can't have it both ways, this is a world encyclopedia, not some private tribe initiative. If this Rabbi Wein is so famous and well-known, then leaving this article as is and just slapping an 'expand' tag on it for 'someone' else to do the work eventually, does no justice to wikipedia or Rabbi Wein. At least bring it up to this standard Tony Robbins. Only if, that is done, keep. Perhaps cut down the stub into a short paragraph with fact-only and referenced info until it can be expanded.--Shuki 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Gosh, no, I can't find evidence of 5000 books written. Amazon.com has a mere 120 hitsfor Wein's books. I don't care if he's a Jew, a Biblethumper, an agnostic or a mushroom-worshipper, that's notable output just on authorship alone. Strong Keep. Ravenswing 15:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shuki: Rabbi Berel Wein is famous in the English-speaking Orthodox world, he made aliyah about ten years ago, and in Israel he spends most of his time writing English Torah books and articles as well as lecturing at the English-speaking baal teshuvah yeshivas, so maybe that is why you have not heard of him (though it's hard to imagine that someone who writes English as well as you do should not have heard of Berel Wein?) Your suggestion, actually more of a THREAT, that: "If someone is not going to take the time to fix up the article in the very near future, then delete" is utterly ridiculous because that is NOT the way we do business on Wikipedia! (See my comments below). No-one said that he had "written" 5,000 books! Read what Jon said above: "having over 5000 book distributed" (don't you read and understand English?) In fact that is a very low figure because I would estimate that probably it's more like 50,000 or 100,000 of Rabbi Wein's -- probably more. He has his own publishing house called Shaar Press as well that works with ArtScroll. The name of the yeshivah he founded, which is still ongoing, is Yeshiva Shaarei Torah of Rockland and his synagogue was Congregation Bais Torah of Suffern, New York [2] No-one said the article was perfect, but that alone is NEVER a reason to delete it, and anything similar on Wikipedia, where editors invarioubly come along and improve factually correct articles (hopefully!) IZAK 10:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Speedy keep, in fact. Unjustified AFD. Do not use AFD to enforce content quality. Sometimes "commercial" links can obscure the fact that someone is widely published. Rabbi Wein is a collumnist for the Jerusalem Post, a prominent former member of the USA Orthodox Rabbinate and the author of four highly respected popular works of history. He is regarded as an authority on the history of the Jewish people. JFW | T@lk 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Highly notable personality. If an article needs cleanup, clean it up. HKT 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Rather famous, well-selling author. The fact that Amazon carries over 120 of his works says that he's notable, not "commercial". Jayjg ^(talk) 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. Kukini 17:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I now see that it was perhaps an error for me not to check on Amazon first, but not knowing much about Judaism, it seemed highly suspicious to have someone who ran "a Yeshiva" (no name) for 20 years. I can point out a number of figured who will come up with many links but about whom we don't have an article. That being said, it is hardly vandalism to verify whether the contents of an article do indeed merit inclusion on Wikipedia, and what better way to do that than put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a ((NPOV)) and ((cleanup)) template on and waiting for someone to perhaos come across it. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 17:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this withdrawal of the AFD by the nominator? If so we can end this as a speedy keep as there have been no votes to delete.Jon513 15:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Err ... what's suspicious about running a yeshiva (which is nothing more offbeat than a religious school) for twenty years? I agree it's hardly vandalism to verify whether the contents of an article merit inclusion -- I do it all the time -- but disagree that advocating the deletion of an article is superior to basic fact checking, and disagree strongly that filing an AfD is a good way to improve articles. For my part, I can't see how an argument like "looks like a vanity project" trumps a lack of proper sourcing. Ravenswing 18:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's suspicious to run a yeshiva, but maybe the problem is that the article failed to identify the yeshiva by name so the fact could be verified. Anyway, keep as the subject's status as a Jerusalem Post columnist supports notability. --Metropolitan90 01:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PZFUN: Apology accepted, but a serious question remains about your methodology concerning the best way to "clean up" poorly written articles. In over three years of editing Wikipedia articles I have never heard your rationale that: "put it on an AfD where people who might know more about the subject might actually see it and comment rather than slapping a ((NPOV)) and ((cleanup)) template on and waiting for someone to perhaos come across it." HUH?! Where did you get such a weird idea from? And you are an admin yet? If you really believe that, then I suggest you stop doin such things right now, before you cause more harm than you may realize. Do you have any idea how Wikipedia started? There were mostly poorly written articles on NOTABLE subjects that were improved over time -- meaning YEARS! Nobody needs you to do "shock therapy" and cause chaos to get other editors' attention. You will only get yourself in more trouble, and complaints filed against you for being a ROGUE ADMIN! Kindly take a few steps back next time, and let this episode be a hard-learned lesson to you. Here's a simple rule for you: When in DOUBT (especially when you know that you know nothing about a subject) please consult other earlier edititors of articles. You could have consulted others who had contributed to the Berel Wein article and this mess could have been avoided.IZAK 10:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only been on wp for six months, and in that short time, I have NEVER, EVER seen such a public chastisement of a fellow wp contributor, which IMO was totally uncalled for especially following an apology. IZAK, your claim that people shouldn't mess with subjects they don't understand is so lame and poor at the same time, irresponsible too. There is absolutely no reason to prevent other editors from wanting the improve the wp project in general and not just stick to 'goyish' things they know about. I've seen many, many improvements to Jewish articles made by goyim, baruch hashem they don't think like you. I would have liked to place this comment on your page, but after rereading your relentless 13 line undressing of PZFUN, I couldn't let that pass while his blood was spilt. Vandals even get more respect from the community. You had absolutely no right to continue past the third line of that comment in this forum and should have taken it 'offline' with PZFUN on his talk page, for his public kavod, for wp standards of relevance to article talk page, and to this hillul hashem of a dressing down. Who are you to tell others to "take a few steps back"? Rogue admin?! Is this how Rabbi Wein would have reacted? --Shuki 21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shuki: First of all I don't need mussar from you. You are now the one who is introducing the detestable word "goyim" (which some regard as a slur) and in your florrid imagination ("I couldn't let that pass while his blood was spilt"???) you are interpreting and attributing words to me that I neither said nor meant, so cool it. I get along well with many editors (as long as they are not obvious anti-Semites). But you fail to address and realize the radical departure from Wikipedia editing policy that User:PZFUN was openly advocating and which I was vehemently objecting to, namely, that he thinks it's ok to tag articles written in a sub-par fashion with VfD tags to get the "attention" of other editors instead of sticking to the accepted conventional and required "article needs improvement" tags. This is something that is dangerous to all of Wikipedia not just Judaic subjects because it would seriously harm the development of articles about important subjects that very often are started in a very amateurish way, but which do improve with time (it sometimes takes years). But what User:PZFUN openly advocates, and he chose to illustrate this with the Berel Wein article (I dunno, maybe he thought no-one was looking...), is to "throw a bomb" at the article and have it voted out, in a rather inept way, as I have already explained. So save your misguided and pathetic "righteous rage" for a better cause because as far as I am concerned, any intelligent editor, especially an admin, should know better. IZAK 12:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor research combatting poor research. Continued on your talk page. --Shuki 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to insert anything into your edit, the correct way have cited this should have been Afd tag removal from Berel Wein ... by this comment. IZAK 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable enough. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Keep very notable author. Does not look like a vanity project. Looks like a badly researched AfD. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand Very well known individual. Article desperately needs to be cleaned up though, so it doesn't look like a vanity project.
• Keep Seems very notable Metromoxie 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remove all those unnecessary tags! - Rabbi Berel Wein is a major Jewish figure well known in the Orthodox Jewish world. I stand among tens of thousands (and perhaps far more) in owning some of his books. Nesher 23:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mazel Tov to IZAK on the cleanup and expansion of this article. As per my previous condition above, keep. --Shuki 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shuki: On a kinder note: Thank you, but really, we do not generally really extend "Mazel Tovs" on Wikipedia, because this is not a kumzits, we are gathering of Encyclopedia editors. IZAK 12:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a gathering, it's a community. and FWIW, as much as I want to punch out IZAK right now, I also want to invite him for a felafel. --Shuki 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well now Shuki, let me ask you, is threatening me with physical violence any worse than Wikipedia:No legal threats for which you can get blocked on the spot on Wikipedia?! Actually, I think it's worse, and makes a mockery of your words of advice to me to be "kindler and gentler" to others. Kindly refrain from making such comments, even when in jest (since humor is hard to read in an Internet discussion such as this), another editor may not be as charitable as me and may actually take you seriously and ask for protection from your threats etc. Hey, what does "FWIW" mean? I am not familiar with all your jargon. As for eating, why do you think a falafel is the solution to life's problems? Maybe cholent is a better solution? IZAK 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per everybody above. I think it's about time to remove the AfD tag, no? And also to kindly chill out. IZAK, a very established and well-respected user, just got blocked a half-hour ago over a matter that should not have come to this. Please let us all move on and work together to make Wikipedia a better place. --DLand^TALK 05:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DLand: I was unblocked very quickly by another admin. Thank you for your words, I agree with you. IZAK 07:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.