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 was merge - this discussion was flawed from the get-go as this is not the correct forum for discussing potential merges. That said, there is a fairly strong mandate to merge this material, and I will tag it as such - but the final decision as to whether or not to merge should come as a result of a proper discussion, not an AfD. Shereth 20:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Rietti[edit]

Jonathan Rietti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Merge and Redirect to the Gateways article because he has been its leading lecturer almost since its founding and it his been his base and "claim to fame" so that this article not be a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a serious rabbi. Also seems to be a violation WP:NOTADVERTISING. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Suchard about Gateways' founder in this regard.) IZAK (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if all you want is a merge and not deletion, it doesn't need to be brought to AfD. Do the merge and close this discussion. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your heading + vote is misleading. Why are the words merge and redirect bolded in your "heading," and why is redirect capitalized both times? It appears suspiciously similar to how votes appear on article for deletion voting pages -- namely, in bold. Should I embolden and capitalize the word Keep every time I use the word here? Why not simply make your point with persuasive text rather than sensationalistic headings that appear as a vote?
Did I make an article for every Gateways rabbi? No. Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher are giants in their field. Rabbi Suchard founded Gateways, and Rabbi Noah Weinberg, the founder of Aish, has an article. Why don't you recommend merging that? Your logic is flawed, or at least ill presented. Rabbi Rietti is an accomplished author and lecturer divorced from his involvement in Gateways. He wrote The One Minute Masmid, and has about 195 lectures currently available on tape, CD and mp3 format. He is a commonly featured speaker at parlor meetings in the northeast United States and perhaps elsewhere as well. He has advanced training in education and was a teacher/administrator for 22 years. He provides private counseling -- and this is all separate and distinct from Gateways. Did Gateways propel him to further popularity -- probably if not definitely. Is it who he is? Absolutely not! Rabbi Slifkin has an article, even though he wrote a bunch of books and one of his books in particular, The Challenge of Creation, has its own article. He is similarly not his book and his book does not define him. What exactly is the issue other than the inadequately expressed and supported one above that poorly claims that Rabbis Rietti, and Suchard, for that matter, do not merit articles merely because they work for an organization that itself possesses an article? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DRosenbach: I appreciate your sincere concerns but you are veering off into too many tangents. Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher may well deserve full blown articles at some stage, but at this time, all the information in the articles about them, indeed the few "citations" in those articles are just taken from Gateways brochures, so that if Gateways itself feels that it can combine them, and if it does not issue copious biographies of those rabbis, there is certainly no need for Wikipedia at this time to devote separate biographies for them. I am not advocating that the information be deleted and lost but that it be moved to the main Gateways article at this time, because Gateways without Rabbis Suchard, Rietti and Becher is not Gateways. Your comparisons to other noted rabbis do not add up either at this time either. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than argue on your rather subjective points, I will argue on the more objective ones in hopes of settling this argument. I notice a turn in your focus; it is no longer notability concerns but the merit of the articles to deserve existence based on length and bredth of coverage. WP:DEL clearly states that [a]rticles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into a larger article or list. This does not apply to any of the articles in question, as there is clearly more information that exists but has just not been added to the articles yet. Suchard's article is merely 3 days old, and even Rietti's, which is several weeks old, possesses the objective quality of "expandability" - rather than insert information without proper citation and precision, the information provided about his biography is forthcoming and will be added in time. There is no violation in creating a stub for a notable person, and as it is quite evident that the consensus has gathered around a confidence in notability, what sense is there to demand a merge when it is against both policy, and in the consensus opinion so far, common sense. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the creator of the Gateways article it would have been wiser to put in all the comprehensive information into it first, about its founding director Rabbi Suchard and about its two leading full time employees Rabbis Rietti and Becher who work for Gateways and Rabbi Suchard. Then, as the information about them and their whole operation would have beeen expanded with more sources, separate biographies about the rabbis could be an outgrowth down the line. It makes no sense writing one article about a small institution and then creating individual articles about three of its four full time rabbis. Therefore, the current approach of writing up separate articles about the organization and three of its rabbis is redundant, even if the rabbis have a somewhat broader resume, they are presently strongly indentified with, and work exclusively for, Gateways, AFAIK. IZAK (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively, that is not absolute policy, and it is not even a relative policy -- If I believe that they each desrve their own aricle and can back up my belief with sources and citations to that end, then they effectively merit their own articles. What policy does state, ironically, is that articles should not be merged when the potential for expansion exists, as cited above. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request a Mistrial

I would like to request a "mistrial" of sorts -- I was under the assumption that articles did not have to added to Wikipedia fully-formed, but that they could be added as stubs and expanded over time -- silly me, I thought that was the point of a wiki. The article has been greatly modified from the content and format that has been voted on by everyone above, and as such, perhaps a new vote is in order, should IZAK still feel that his point is sound. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

relatively small Orthodox outreach organization
What does relatively mean? I'd say Gateways is very large and rapidly becoming one of the most popular Jewish outreach organizations. They rent out hotels for Jewish holidays and thousands of people visit these hotels each year to spend their holiday with and hear lectures from the Gateways speakers. Then there are the other 6 divisions of Gateways -- hardly a small operation. So it does make a lot of sense to make an article about it and any of their speakers who are extremely notable.
Compared to Chabad, Aish HaTorah and NCSY it is tiny. Just look at its full time staff and see why it's very small. Rabbi Buchwald's NJOP is much bigger and they don't request articles for every last rabbi who teaches for them and there are hundreds of them. Not to mention non-Orthodox rabbis who do not get biographies even though they may lead congregations that numbers in the hundreds and even the thousands yet their biographical information gets mentioned in the context of being the rabbi/s of their synagogues and not as you wish to do here by having separate articles for the Gateways article and also for four of its five or so full time rabbis, which is over-reaching by any standard. IZAK (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject
That's just it. Gateways is but a part of Rabbi Rietti's life. He is has recorded 195 lectures and people through America buy them and listen to them. He has yet to go platinum, but 195 albums is 195 more than I have recorded, and probably 195 more than most people have recorded. He is also an author of at least 2 texts. He has also been featured on a radio show numerous times. Your assertion is incorrect - his article and the Gateways article do not treat the same subject. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 06:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many rabbis record their lectures and they sell them, he is no exception. He goes on some radio shows and many of them are sponsored. It does not make him into a great and notable sage. He is basically a salesman for Orthodox and Haredi Judaism trying to convince people to become religious and his texts are similarly geared. All this fits beautifully with the Gateways mission, but at this time it is hard to see why he should get a full blown biography. IZAK (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
God is in management and rabbis are in marketing; God decided what the Torah is all rabbis market the Torah - that is their job. Salesmen who are notable because they are considered the top salesmen in America are still notable, whether or not you want to buy their product, and "great sagehood" is not yet a criterion for notability on Wikipedia. The disdain exuded by your comments is clouding your objectivity. Are you suggesting that the Beatles article be deleted (or deleted, redirected and moved) because they are famous for doing something that makes them money? And we can't possibly have every band get an article, so no bands can have an article? That seems to be your basis premise, or at least it is now, because your premise continually shifts as the target of your attack becomes sufficiently protected with logic, reason, citation, source and objective fact. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for God by anyone will not help this discussion. This should not get into a theological debate because it is not what this (or any) AfD is about. Noone is debating the roles or powers of God here. But there are certainly different classes of rabbis. Some are great scholars of the law, and others are..., well, preachers, but while many scholars earn their articles by dint of their vast erudition and scholarship that is known to other scholars, the preachers and "salesmen", while they may be well-liked by many people, cannot be classed in the category of notability as great scholars and rabbis, such as rosh yeshivas and Chasidic Rebbes for example. Even in the Baal teshuva world their are standards for greatness and notability, and while not every Chabad, Aish HaTorah and Ohr Somayach rabbis get their own biographies, only the very exceptional ones merit them after careful scrutiny by editors like us. That is why there was once even a project of Wikipedia:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week where such matters we are discussing could be debated, but has been dormant, and the result is that each new biography must be debated on a case by case basis, which is what we are doing here and you need to WP:AGF about that. IZAK (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a discussion about religion and it has never been one. This is a discussion about an article's merit to exist. Rabbi Rietti speaks nationwide and has been cited with sources as one of the most sought after speakers in Jewish outreach. Jewish outreach and their supporters are hardly esoteric, as would be speakers of an underwater basketmaking organization. How can his notability be put into question when there are currently no rules put into place and, as you said, there is no uniform regulatory oversight. To apply arbitrary regulations retroactively is unfair. Who is to say that Rabbi Rietti is ordinary and not extraordinary -- you and the people who vote "per IZAK" because you have swayed them with your claims? I say he is extraordinary and have provided independant, third-party verification. Your assertions that these sources are invalid because they co-sponsor events with Gateways is ludicrous -- the sister organizations, as well as unaffiliated organizations, secure this and other rabbis to speak precisely because the are excellent and exceed expectations, they are not claimed to be excellent because they have been secured and increased attendance is desired. While I have done my best to follow policy and respect the rule of law, you have done nothing but state your personal opinion and violate Wikipedia regulations, including WP:AFD, WP:DEL, WP:MERGE and claims of consensus - this is not even a valid forum within which to put merge to a vote. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does someone have to write an independantly published book to be notable? Rabbi Rietti is a much sought after speaker throughout America, which has been substantiated by articles and press releases put out by almost every Jewish outreach organization in America. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Five independant news outlet citations have been provided to support his notability. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 21:22, 16 June 2008 (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.
More