Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avraham Friedman

:{{la|Avraham Friedman}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Avraham Friedman}})

This one-line article was created and listed as unreferenced in December 2009, and has had 2 edits since then, neither of which have added content. The subject is listed at the parent page, Hebrew Theological College, also as a one-line mention. Until biographical details become available, it does not meet WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Chesdovi (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. A Rosh yeshiva is comparable to a dean of a college, from what I understand, and the latter is considered notable here on Wikipedia. I added one source and will add more when time permits.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Brew, who I think is correct, though I'm willing to have my mind changed if editors can show me he is wrong. Someone might consider pinging[I've pinged] DGG on this issue, as I know he has spent a lot of time considering the issue of notability of schools and academics, and might have some thoughts from other similar AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep because this is a WP:NOTABLE person as a living rosh yeshiva of a famous institution in the Chicago area, a double rarity in itself! These types of rabbinic personalities do not generate news which makes it harder to find more quotes and sources because they keep a low profile as they do their work as key living Talmudists and teachers of Orthodox and Haredi Jews. At this time I have added more material to this article and it can be improved even further with time. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. While we may consider a Rosh yeshiva comparable to a dean, a small religious college (in this case, one that has <200 undergrads) does not qualify as "a major academic institution", as described in WP:PROF #6. Consequently, the subject is not notable for his position per se and the article does not make any other claim to notability. The other problem here is that there are no acceptable sources. The Hamodia article is a trivial mention, the sum total of which is "Hebrew Theological College reminds the community that Rosh Yeshivah Rabbi Avraham Friedman continues his weekly Gemara shiur each Sunday", and the other 2 are a [http://www.htc.edu/audio/rabbi-friedman/rabbi-avraham_friedman.php webpage] from his school and a mention in the school's [http://htc.edu/index.php/News/story1.html newspaper], neither of them being authoritative sources that are independent of the subject. (Note that the newspaper article has been cited twice, giving the appearance of 2 separate sources.) These 2 docs really do not confirm anything more than existence. IZAK is basically arguing once again that we waive the requirement of having sources for a WP:BLP, but I don't think that can be done legitimately. So, it seems that this article is another one that boils down to the question of whether we will follow our own rules regarding keeping or deleting a WP:BLP. With all due respect, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

:The "major" of criteria #6 does not necessarily refer to the amount of enrolled students but to the prominence of the institution.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

::*There are certainly clear-cut cases of a "major academic institution" (most research universities, for example), and there certainly are borderline cases (arguably, many undergrad liberal arts colleges). Conversely, most small religious colleges like HTC are not considered as such, for reasons variously including small enrollment, narrow focus of study, lack of significant research or other notable scholarly impact, lack of division-level athletics, lack of national visibility, and so on and so forth. You can check numerous similarly-categorized colleges of other religious persuasions, like Grace Bible College or Bethany Lutheran College, and you'll likewise find that their leaders are not considered to be notable per se. I'm afraid that that is the clear-cut case here, as well. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

:::*Agri, hi there. 1. Firstly, put rules aside and use logic and common sense first! Please don't lose a sense of proportion when dealing with Jews and especially Orthodox Jews. While there are 7 Billion humans, there are only about 13 Million Jews and perhaps not more than 1 Million Orthodox Jews, so that 200 students in an Orthodox institution is the equivalent of a good mid-size college in the USA. 2. Additionally, and this is well-known, rosh yeshivas and truly famous Orthodox rabbis do not seek publicity, in fact they run from it, so that it becomes paradoxical that the most famous and top Orthodox scholars have fewer articles about them, while minor nobody publicity hounds get articles that do not reflect the reality of the situation. 3. Finally, WP is in the process of building up good material about notable scholars and we need to get into building-mode and not run to chop down valuable and encyclopedic articles before their time. If this were a truly insignificant person I would be the first to have the article deleted, but that is not the case, and each case must be judged on its merits with intelligent input from experienced Judaic editors who after all are the ones building up this esoteric topic on this encyclopedia. Thanks for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

::::*Comment. So, in other words, we should make exceptions in WP policy for Orthodox rabbis that (1) these individuals must be notable, and (2) that there must be reliable, authoritative sources to back up claims of notability. This is basically special pleading. How do you square your argument with my observation that non-Jewish leaders of small non-Jewish religious colleges are not notable? I think this comes down to a simple assessment based on WP policy: are there or are there not reliable sources that indicate notability? And, in this case, the answer is clearly no. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

:::::*No Agri, you are missing the point here altogether. What I am saying is that we should not lose sight of reality and the real world simply because WP has made up "rules" -- rules are fine as long as they can help convey the truth and reality of phenomena and people, while "verifiability" should not be allowed to twist our minds and make us into slavish robots like bureaucrats lost in a world of artificial rules, when we need to be creative writers and contributors to a growing encyclopedia that is still under construction. Don't get me wrong either, I am not saying to deny WP rules, all rules are important but they cannot "dictate" how creativity should function. In this case, we have a few hooks at least to hang the start of this article on. I am a great believer in the process of construction and building good stuff, while junk should be thrown overboard, in this case, and others like it, it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Bottom line, I adhere to Inclusionism, and I advise you to read Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, especially if this is not your particular area of expertise based on your editing history. IZAK (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep In actual practice, I think the head of any college, however small, is notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.(and that Yeshivas of this sort are essentially colleges). whether Deans are depend on the nature of the school and their function, because some are minor officials--but I think it's correct that a rosh yeshiva is the head of the school. For those who think it applies only to major yeshivas, how do we distinguish which ones are major. It's prestige as well as size, and I don't think there are any formal ratings. At this point, whether there are accessible secondary sources is a matter of chance, and I don't think the use of the GNG is rational here in either direction. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

::*As to the (lack of) sources? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

: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.