Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tova Hartman

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 keep. John254 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tova Hartman

Tova Hartman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

It is with great reluctance that I nominate this article, but by now, anyone familiar with

• NOTE: See related votes at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mendel Shapiro and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Sperber.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. IZAK 08:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Speedy Keep Nominator has failed to state an actual criterion for nomination. Nom has alleged
  COI policy and there is simply no problem with having an article on a topic an editor happens to be interested in as long as the usual inclusion criteria are met. The nominator needs to assert an actual policy basis for deletion to have a legitimate AfD and avoid a speedy keep. --Shirahadasha 04:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. Although non-notability has not been asserted as a basis for this AfD, as an FYI the following sources are sufficient to meet the central notability criterion of
    WP:BIO: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. In addition, the fact that Professor Hartman's works have been published by the Harvard University Press (e.g. [7]), Duke University's Common Knowledge (e.g. [8]), the APA (e.g. [9]), etc., is also an indication that her academic work has been peer-reviewed and is notable independently of her work as founder of Shira Hadasha and as a popular writer and lecturer, as is the fact that Stanford University uses one of her books as a text. [10]. See also this source. Best, --Shirahadasha 09:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Shira, we all know how to use Google, but let's try applying our brains also. While Tova Hartman may be a lovely lady, she is just one of millions of professors and tens of thousands of Hebraica and Judaica academics in the world with nice articles about them and with books they may have had published by universities, BUT that would in no way qualify them to become icons or guides for new ways of re-inventing Judaism. What you are saying Shira, is that this lady Tova Hartman, because she is a professor and has had her words printed can now come forth and change Judaism and as you argue in the article that that is her "claim to fame" -- nowhere in Jewish history have academics had ANY standing in the world of
    WP:RS but that still gives them less than ZERO credibility in the world of Judaism. Wikipedia cannot teach lies it has a responsibilty to facts as well. IZAK 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. On this site and in the article there is nothing that shows she is more than a lecturer with degrees and strong opinions. No news articles or books with her as the subject...misses the
  WP:BIO criteria about multiple non-trivial reliabile independant publications about her. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, the fact that there is a group of people going through the pains of getting all references to Jewish Feminism out of Wikipedia in itself makes the notable Alf photoman 13:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hartman is important enough to have refutations on the web by major figures like Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. But the criteria is less Judaism and more feminist academics. It should be debated on a more appropriate project group--Jayrav 15:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Here is a source for Elizabeth Fox-Genovese's commentary on Hartman: [11]. --Shirahadasha 19:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy Merge to Shira Hadasha - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 15:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I agree with
  assume good faith - failure to do so does not help their proposals.--Cailil 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I have no affiliation with
    Kadosh Hakadashim, Mikveh, Mechitza, and many more. I am simply not a one-issue editor. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak Keep; see my comments on the AfD below regarding this bad faith nomination.
  RGTraynor 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets
  John Vandenberg 08:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. 15 articles in Google News archive, three in current news. Clearly notable. Bad faith nom. —David Eppstein 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on basis of material above. --MacRusgail 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the current state of the references I still feel that my delete commentary was correct; although I feel the same way about the nom as per RGTraynor's comments. None of the references or news articles are about her, just mentioning her work as part of a larger article. It does seem that if she was a Professor of Education involved in feminist issues in say England with the same level of news commentary there would be a lot more deletion feeling. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she was in England, and there was more feeling for deletion, someone would need to justify deletion using

John Vandenberg 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It was argued in the discussion that Jewish women have never been traditionally Torah scholars, and therefore she, as a woman scholar, could not be notable-- that comment is of course the most extraordinary POV pushing. It was also argued that she represents only one possible group of Jewish feminist scholars is equally POV, for it can be remedied in the obvious way, by including the others. I urge those who did not say keep to go a few paragraphs back and re-read those 2 arguments. I hadn't known her work before, but now I want to see what accounts for these extraordinary feelings. DGG 01:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. Kolindigo 07:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  John Vandenberg 22:45, 23 February 2007 (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.