Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Shafran

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Shafran

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

Not notable enough to be here. Doesn't pass AUTHOR and being director of the AIA is not enough to warrant inclusion. Article has no sources and just links to articles. Seems more a promo. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rabbi Shafran gets more than 2,100 hits at Google News, but they appear to be almost entirely (a) op-eds he's written, (b) letters to the editor he's written, and (c) quotes from him as "spokesman for Agudath Israel". I found an interview with Rabbi Shafran, but no in-depth coverage. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Rabbi Shafran is an incredibly prolific Orthodox rabbinic blogger and op-ed writer, and is often the target of topical and personal attacks by people with opposing views on the internet. But aside from the interview cited by User:Malik Shabazz above, I have not found an article about him personally, aside from his own blog. Despite his name recognition, he does not meet Wikipedia's GNG policy. Yoninah (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep strong. Satisifies person is regarded as an important figure, and as per above name recognition too, satisifies person has created .. a significant or well-known .. collective body of work, and as per above 2,100 hits too, satisifies multiple reviews, for example a very basic google search pops up [1] [2] [3] in the first hand fulls of results reviews / commentaries so no doubt there are many more of lesser and better quality. While not a perfect test against WP:NJOURNALIST/WP:AUTHOR I think does more than just enough to satisfy notabilty. Aoziwe (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aoziwe, your first two sources are non-RS and blogspots. Re The Jewish Week source, plenty of people respond to Shafran's columns. The problem is that there is nothing written about Shafran himself. Yoninah (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I get that. My point was that there is a lot of stuff out there not primary, as I admitted of very wide range in quality. Note that WP:NJOURNALIST/WP:AUTHOR does not require stuff about the author. It is the collection of work, or about the author, or combination/s there of. I am not going to die in a ditch on this one at all. It just seems to me that even the deletes above instinctively agree that this guy is notable but just does not neatly fit the current written definition. If we agree there should be an encyclopedic article about him then we just agree to break the rules. Our primary objective is I suggest that we as the wikicommunity build our own consensus to build a better encyclopedia. We are not here to rigidly follow the status quo. If that was the case Jimbo Wales would never have created Wikipedia in the first place ? The rules are here to help build a better encyclopedia, so if they get in the way and we agree then we just do what is best. Wikipedia is not here to give meaning to the rules. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's not important, he's a spokesman for an important organization. Does the VP of Marketing for Coke have a Wiki article? He's not notable, he may be searchable but that is just because of his job. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shafran works as a spokesman for an organization with a substantial public profile, this means that his opinion pieces get published and that his name appears in the press a lot. But he appears in the press as a spokesman, and spokesmen are not automatically notable. I see from the article that he wrote a couple of books. But I searched and found no independent sources on those books. I do see that it is a useful funciton of this encyclopedia to enable people to look up the names of people they see quoted in t the press, and find out something about them. But while either the authored books or the spokesman role might have generated the kind of coverage (profiles, analysis or reviews of work) in secondary sources that we require to establish notability, I cannot locate such sources. Failing significant, reliable, secondary sourcing that supports notability, I don't see how we keep the article. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2016 (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.