Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noach Orlowek

:{{la|Noach Orlowek}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Noach_Orlowek Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Noach Orlowek}})

No assertion of notability. Only reference on page is a link to a copy of his book. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Would have speedied this one but it's a pretty old article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Possible keep Sometimes with these very old, unsourced articles, it's better to tag them for sourcing, notability. It has been edited over the years since creation in 2007, which makes it possible that tagging would have inspired someone to swing by and add sources. I don't iVote delete without running at least a quick check for sources, so i checked, and added some RS to the page. Cutting out some unsourced fancruft.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

:*Thanks for adding those sources. In my view these are trivial mentions and I don't believe the page meets the notability guidelines. For example, the Fox News article contains a single quote from Orlowek, and has no information about him at all (beyond the blogger's admiration). FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep A credible claim of notability as an author and educator, with appropriate sources to back up the claim despite the systemic bias that usually makes finding sources for such individuals rather challenging. Alansohn (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

:*Simply being an educator or author is not sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. And unfortunately if there are no reliable sources with in depth coverage, there isn't much we can do as editors about that. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Incidental mentions are not substantial reviews. His boks are held in very few libraries--My child my disciple is not event in World Cat. This does not altogether disqualify them from being notable within his community, but it does indicate no wider notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete we lack the indepdent, 3rd party reliable sources that would be needed to establish notability. Some of the assertion about Orlowek, such as that he is "respected" by Jews in "Mexico and Latin America" lack any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• One of the sources is essentially a community event advertisement. This is not the level of source we should be using to establish an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Of the three sources, the first is an event announcement and the second mentions him only trivially. I can't access the third but evidently it's about his otherwise-non-notable publications, and even if it is reliable and in-depth it wouldn't be enough by itself for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.