Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srully Abe Stein

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 delete. Pure promotion. Had I seen this earlier, I would have speedy deleted as G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Srully Abe Stein

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject lacks sufficient depth of coverage in reliable, intellectually independent sources to meet the notability guideline at WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they are links to Wall Street Journal, Haaratz, and an outside You Tube clip, as well as Kava Shtiebal Fourm (there was other fourm as well that was deleted by someone, they will be entered soon) thy clearly shows independent interest in this person. Fultichan (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be here and here. Neither one appears to provide significant coverage of the subject. Youtube and forums are not reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fultichan. Both of the articles linked although they also talk about other people, they chose Srully's picture, and that is how it was published. That does show significant interest in him. Also from the forums that were linked it is evident that at least in specific communities that is a big interest in Srully and his thoughts.

I see that Fultichan asked on your talk page why you deleted th "writings" section. I agree with him, and it seems to be really interesting. Fultichan, I think you should add it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.50.157 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) — 160.39.50.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Read here the other part of the discussion. I believe that by now we have provided enough evidence to keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fultichan (talk • contribs) 08:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the writer, the subject is very interesting, at least to hundreds of people in my community. I don't know who those people that are requiring to delete it our, but it seems to me that they are people in the Hasidic community that are known for hating everyone that leaves them, trying to shut them up, and hate when people speak up. I feel that for the sake of the people who left this community, this has to stay. Especially considering that Srully is of great interest because of his family status. (Chavie Feldman (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC))— Chavie Feldman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per User VQuakr (talk · contribs) and User Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). This article relies on personal blogs and self-promotion and no real RS at all. The article clearly violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK & WP:NOTFORUM. Maybe in a few years time, if the subject picks up fame/notoriety/whathaveyou and then gets seriously covered by the media (not just as part of minor family scandals) or is cited in reliable sources, the subject can be revisited, but for now there is not much of anything here to justify it as encyclopedic or "noteworthy". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. I have not !voted herein; I only provided deletion sorting. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We provided a whole list of links to outside forums that do both, talk about him as for himself, and discuss his theology and philosophy. While we understand that these sources have two issues, one being that they are in Yiddish and not in English, s well as being fourms and not normal sites. It is necessary to understand the nature of the subject and community, where this is as formal as it gets. At the same time, this shows an big interest in the subject and his works, and asks for the need of an article. Fultichan (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we are not in any way affiliate with the subject, although we do know him in person, and are exposed to him and his works. Fultichan (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fultichan: who is "we"? VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: this account is shared by a group of 6 people that are part of a semi publishing company, working on doing research and publications regarding several Jewish - Hasidic related subject. This article was written combined by 3 of our staff, and edited by another. Fultichan (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fultichan: and NOTE to closing admin/s: What you say is very troubling. a. You mention "outside forums that do both, talk about him as for himself" yet you show no awareness of Wikipedia's requirements for WP:RS that is a key requirement for any article. b. You claim that "this account is shared by a group of 6 people that are part of a semi publishing company" that violates WP:Group accounts aka Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts: "Because an account represents your edits as an individual, 'role accounts', or accounts shared by multiple people, are as a rule forbidden and blocked..." so by all rights you should be WP:BLOCKED ASAP by an admin who sees this. c. You also claim that you "are part of a semi publishing company...This article was written combined by 3 of our staff, and edited by another" which, without more clarification from you, you, you, you, you, and you, then raises the question of violating WP:Paid editing aka Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing: "Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our WP:NPOV Advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are prohibited by our policy WP:NOT. Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them. Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus against his or her position by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, WP:Own or WP:Civility..." d. You also claim that you are "working on doing research and publications regarding several Jewish - Hasidic related subject [sic]" which is very strange because if this article of yours is anything to go by, it has nothing to do with Hasidic Judaism as such since it discusses how the subject rejected his former Hasidic way of life and is now an atheist, so if anything what you are writing about is anti-Hasidism or Anti-Judaism that would fit into Category:Criticism of Judaism and certainly NOT into Category:Hasidic Judaism. Thus it is therefore intellectually dishonest and abuse of logic for you to claim that you are writing about a topic when it is obvious that you have a POV agenda to write against that topic under the guise of "publishing" and "editorship" and whatnot. Hopefully an admin will look into this and give us some clear guidance before the matter gets out of hand. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Oversight on my part. I have now made the correction that it's User VQuakr (talk · contribs) I was referring to. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is pure spam that uses social networking posts (and now SPAs) to push the ludicrous assertion that an unremarkable undergraduate student is the 21st Century's answer to Socrates. He has "hundreds of Facebook followers"...? Big fucking deal, so does my sister. A teenage cousin of mine has approximately 1500 and yet is not on Wikipedia begging for attention. This article is taking the piss. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability requirements, possible spam/self-promotional Avi (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is merely the biography of one man breaking away from religion to more fully engage with secularity, but the subject—Srully Abe Stein—is not particularly notable. Perhaps notes from his experience can be merged into general articles on related phenomenon—the relationship between secular courts and religious courts as pertains to divorce—for instance. This is a young man attending college, formerly Orthodox, with children, with interests, it seems to me, in both religious and secular matters. I don't think notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is attained based on those fairly unremarkable specifics. I don't think the articles in the Wall Street Journal and Haaretz are establishing notability, for Wikipedia purposes, for a biography of the individual. Those sources are discussing a phenomenon. That phenomenon is noteworthy. But we already have articles on that phenomenon. The individual serves to illustrate the phenomenon. But this should not be construed as conferring notability on the individual. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails general notability guidance. WP:ANI is the correct forum for blocking an account that is used by multiple Homo sapiens. JFW | T@lk 15:20, 20 November 2014 (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.