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 of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 02:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable bio & advertising. Perhaps could be speedied? -202.156.6.54 23:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - Yakov's claim to fame is......? 147.70.242.21 23:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Might His life has been filled with wonderful accomplishments and exquisite sufferings be a claim to notability? Looks pretty much a {{nn-bio}} speedy delete candidate to me. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete slowly as some claims to fame but falls well short of WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Flapdragon 00:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - being a "a Talmudic scholar, genius, social activist, and poet" does not establish notability. Neither does being a "hippie scholar." B.Wind 05:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Please give me (I am the original author) and others time to make the case. Mr. Newman possesses identifiable expertise in his field and he is engaged in important scholarship that is recognized by his peers. Thank you! Redtopusa 20:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Please also see the following discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Yakov_Newman[reply]
• Clean it up, but keep it! Yakov deals with some pretty esoteric stuff, but he is an expert and his work is important. Unfortunately, his colleagues are more likely to be praying in front of a certain wall in Jerusalem than to be editing Wiki's. It's going to be hard to find legitimate peers to contribute, he runs in some fairly elite circles. Most people have no idea his world even exists. bluezionlion 30 November 2005
• Comment. The last two comments/votes are from the two editors who have worked on the article. Check their histories and the history of the article in question - if this isn't sockpuppetry, it's an interesting coincidence. B.Wind 04:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Response. There is no such thing as a coincidence. I was alerted to the situation, and I have been transparently advocating and contributing. (I have been trying to clean up the previous work in an attempt to make it more acceptable, and I invite you to do the same.) Hopefully, there is no need for conspiracy theories, the trail has been well marked and is still quite warm. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. bluezionlion 30 November 2005
  • Bluezionlion, it would be most appreciated if you don't delete or revert votes when you edit this page. The deleted vote has been restored above. B.Wind 05:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • B.Wind, Please go back and review the log. At no time have I deleted any vote! You owe me an apology, I hope you are an individual of sufficient quality to actually set the record straight. Perhaps the phenomenon you reference was due to our simultaneously posting, or to my editing my own grammar. I never altered your or anyone else's vote. bluezionlion 30 November 2005
  • B.Wind, I am tired and going to retire. If you post anything directed toward me, please be patient. I will attempt to respond to you tomorrow. bluezionlion 30 November 2005
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Izehar 23:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dalbury & Izehar, What can I do to keep this thing from going under? Can you help me? Please edit out the stuff that is getting me in trouble, or tell me what I need to add. Thanks! Redtopusa 00:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've already responded to your message on my talk page. Basically, you have to prove to us he meets WP:BIO. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 01:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Dalbury, Thank you very much for getting back to me. I really appreciate it. I believe there is place in Wikipedia for the Newman article based upon the criteria given within the following excerpts of the WP:BIO:

        "Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia. This list is not all-inclusive. There are numerous biographies on Wikipedia on people who do not fall under any of these categories, but there is no intention to delete them all. . . . Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. . . ." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO#People_still_alive)

      • Mr. Newman obtained his Talmudic expertise in the Yeshiva world of Jerusalem, and he excels in the field because of his genius. Unfortunately, it is difficult for an outsider to have that sufficiently documented or quantified. It's kind of an insider thing--the people who know are able to recognize the people who know. Yakov is unique, though, in that he is able to add to that rich background considerable expertise in philosophy and the hard sciences. He is also able to bring a wealth of colorful life experiences and adventures obtained while traveling the world. He really is someone odd and wonderful--a treasure. I want to share him, but I don't know how to get it across who he is. Hopefully, I am can make enough progress to save the article. Again, I really appreciate you helping me. Thanks! Redtopusa 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. the problem here is that the article must pass Wikipedia:Verifiability. That is a must. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, text and pic come from http://www.danishgrove.com/newman/biography.html. Flapdragon 14:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Dalbury & Flapdragon, I am very thankful for your time and your responses. I would like to continue to draw on the feedback I have received from you and others to refine this thing until it ultimately works. (How does the Dylan Thomas poem go? "Do not go gentle into that good night...")

Of course, my primary ambition is to document the fact that Yakov Newman is a notable Talmudic scholar and expert on Judaica. But, that is extremely difficult to do. Most of us are accustomed to the system of degrees, peer review, and publishing used within Western Academia to establish credibility. The Yeshiva world works a little differently than that. The sages there do not spend too much time worrying about being accepted as an expert by those who are not of that world, so I have had to struggle for outside material. To this point I have found documentation for him being cited by the author of a Kabbala manual. And, I have found a Conference program listing him as being a presenter on Jewish/Christian history. That is not much, I know, but I hope that it will be seen as evidence that he is regarded in certain circles as being an authority.

Regarding Mr. Newman's poetry, that really isn't a priority for me. He is a talented poet, but that is primarily only going to be known by a few folks along the coffee shop circuit between Boston and Berkley, so I am willing to remove such a claim if it presents a problem.

As for Mr. Newman being a genius, I present the following evidence: The Wiktionary defines genius as meaning "someone possessing extraordinary intelligence or skill." (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genius) According to the official Mensa International website, "membership in Mensa is open to persons who have attained a score within the upper two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervised." (http://www.mensa.org/index0.php?page=10) The official Utah Mensa website identifies Yakov Newman as being the Deputy "LocSec" (Local Secretary) for Utah (Region 9, Group 840) in May of 2002. (http://www.geocities.com/utahmensa/may01.htm) I believe the preceding sufficiently establishes the fact that Mr. Newman is a genius. But, I will remove that term if it sounds like hyperbole.

As for Mr. Newman being a notable, one of the criteria given in the [WP:BIO] is that of being someone in the news: On March 18, 2003, the Deseret Morning News reported under the headline "Peace protest ends in arrests" (page B-2) that Yakov Newman and nine other members of "Utah Citizens for Peace entered [U.S. Congressman, Jim] Matheson's office Monday and demanded he change his stand on the pending [Iraq] war. They refused to leave his office if that stand didn't change — even if it meant some arrests..." Accompanying the article is a photograph of Yakov reading a prayer book while he and another protester are being arrested. (See Deseret Morning News Archives)

This incident is also documented on the following websites:

• IMC-Salt Lake

• The Nuclear Resister

As for the biography, it actually originates with a public domain media kit that Mr. Newman supplies to organizations that he addresses. The first time I saw it was on the Utah Atheist website some years back. They posted it after they had invited him to address their organization. Since then it has bounced around the web in various incarnations.

So, what do you think? Am I making any progress? Thanks! Redtopusa 01:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I repeat: without a filibuster (preferably in three sentences or less), what is his claim to fame and what separates him from other scholars? Both the article and posts from Retopusa and Bluezionlion indicated more an essay of idol worship rather than an encyclopedic article. With all the words going on, what would make Mr. Newman noteworthy to the average Joe Blow in Peoria (or Manchester)? 147.70.242.21 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Yakov Newman's claim to fame is that he is a news-making public figure and a rare authority in Talmudic studies.
    • (2) What separates him from other scholars is his genius and pioneering efforts within the discipline.
    • (3) He is noteworthy to the average person because he represents one of the few sources accessible to such an individual for traditional Talmudic learning. Redtopusa 22:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Redtopusa, none of those contentions make him rise to meet the notability criteria:

1)"News making public figure" -- being part of a group who had a sit-in, for example -- wouldn't be sufficient in that it doesn't separate himself from the others in the activity. The term "news making public figure" is an exceptionally vague term -- a county commissioner making the news when he bowled a perfect 300 game, for example, wouldn't in itself merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

2)The fact that he is a "rare authority on Talmudic studies" (by whose objective standards? That would have to be referenced, too... but I digress) is not notable to anybody outside the field. If that were the case, we'd have to include "premier authorities" of every possible field of Academia... and that is most highly POV at best.

3)Genius is not noteworthiness in itself - there are over 6 million geniuses in the United States alone - and "pioneering efforts within the discipline" harkens back to my comment #2 above.

4)And your #3 ("He represents one of the few sources accessible to such an individual for traditional Talmudic learning") is essentially a restatement of "rare authority on Talmudic studies," and until/unless Talmudic studies get more mainstream attention, it cannot be notable enough for a general-purpose reference.

While I am sympathetic to your (and Bluezionlion's) passion for Mr. Newman (and I know you are doing this in good faith - coincidence aside (per B.Wind)), there are more appropriate places and resources for your project at this time. Until Mr. Newman gets much more national notice, I cannot see this endeavor succeeding here, and I must maintain my advocacy for deletion. 147.70.242.21 23:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Version: I have greatly reduced the article to include only what I felt I could document. I wish it were better, but I think it is the best I can do. If it still fails to meet the necessary criteria, please delete it with my blessing. Thanks to everyone who worked with me on this. It has been fun. May you and your loved ones be blessed! Redtopusa 00:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redtopusa, though I feel you have had trouble relating to the Wikipedia concept, I for one salute your passion, persistence, good faith and courtesy. I feel sure there will be things you can contribute to articles such as Talmud, Yeshiva, Judaica etc. The essential thing is to make sure what you add is objective, verifiable, neutrally expressed and genuinely notable. Best wishes, Flapdragon 02:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that it was simply too early for this article. The notoriety of Yakov Newman needs to be established to a much wider audience. One useful way is to "work your way" down from general to specific (for example, while a particular actor in himself might not be notable, he could be mentioned in an article covering a motion picture or television series in which he appeared). Redtopusa, please don't let a stumble dissuade you from writing great articles - just about all of us get into similar situations at one time or another, and not necessarily at Wikipedia. B.Wind 00:21, 4 December 2005 (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.