Talk:Tzvi Berkowitz

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Lithuania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 May 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Concerns have been expressed previously and I've restored the notability tag because the references aren't at all satisfactory: they're either congregation websites and such, local blurbs and programs, or brief acknowledgments in books. Please do not remove the notability tag until substantive

• Hi Agricola: This a major Haredi rabbi and Talmudist who is well-known and active in the American yeshiva world, who is well-known in his field. There are no glorious works about such people. So far, the objectors have been satisfied with the upgrade of this article and have even added agreeing touches. Had they objected they would have said so, so it is unclear where you are coming from or why now. Have you researched this field enough? have you edited in these areas much? Judging from your edit history it seems you have no interest or experience editing in this type of subject so why are you getting involved now? The sources cited so far are more than adequate to prove
  reliable sources to establish notability of religious subjects and figures. Notability in the field, not notability in general media, is the standard, and that is met here. There is no problem I can see that can justify questioning this..." and the same applies here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The first part of your statement borders on assuming bad faith on my part and suggesting that because of my edit history I'm not qualified to edit this article. Do I have that correct, or would you care to rephrase? (To satisfy your suspicion as to "why now": because this article showed-up recently on the prod list, which I monitor closely.) You do not
    WP:EW here. The alternative would be simply to take the article straight to AfD and my sense is that in its present form, it would not survive there. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC).[reply
    ]
    • Agricola: The expert editors who were the first ones to prod the article have since that time in fact been satisfied that that article was indeed substantially improved by adding their own improvements to it. At this time no one is questioning the notability of this rabbi but you, which is odd, given that you are basing yourself on an earlier prod that has since been attended to with the addition of the added
      WP:STUBs and brief biographies do, but the way you are setting down draconian stipulations here is alarming given that based on your edit history you are not an expert in this field and have little interest in it beyond nitpicking and questioning editors who have no axe to grind beyond wishing to see to it that a truly notable personality is not shoved aside. Regardless of how well I knew Wikipedia policies, I would defer to reliable established expert editors. I have nominated articles for deletion, so I am not "anti-deletion" either. Yet I would never enter a subject matter or domain of knowledge that I know nothing about, such as rocket science or astrophysics and its related scientists and notables, or snoop about religious personalities and ministers in other religions such as Islam or Christianity that I am not an expert in and do not edit and rummage around for articles to nitpick with. What I am saying is logical, rational and objective. Quit threatening with AFDs, if that's your goal, go for it and we'll see what happens and what comes of it. I am not "married" to this article, and I'm confident it will be judged as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I am certain that were this to be taken to AFD it would survive. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • You're trying to give the impression that removal of the prod tag means that all the editors of this article now accept that the subject is notable, but that isn't true. You're the one that removed the tag, so I think all we can really say is that you believe that notability has been established. Pardon if I disagree. The citations actually do not say much more than he exists – have a close look at them please. Also, have a look at
        WP:NPLT – perceived threats of action related to libel are wont to get you blocked. Ditto with your oblique accusations to my being motivated by bad-faith. How about just leaving ethno-religious issues out of this altogether? Biographies are indeed a subject area where anyone can and should edit because bios involve nothing more than integrating information from already-established sources. The very problem here is the sources. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC).[reply
        ]
        • Hi Agri: The problem is not the sources. The ten cited are more than sufficient at this point. Many
          WP:NONSENSE, because what I was saying was that to accuse the subject of "merely existing" is the equivalent of saying he is a nobody and zero and in that sense it would be a libelous statement to him. You are missing the wood for the trees. IZAK (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]