Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Braiterman

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. Article has since been improved and consensus is to keep, This should never have been relisted but anywho closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Braiterman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete-No notability except being a proffesor in a (reputed??) university.Article sources are closely associated with subject! Keep-I think the improvements by Squeamish Ossifrage has taken the article to another level! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete doesn't seem to be notable at all. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Struck vote, and changed to Keep based on much improved article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the materials available, he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only one source used, and it's from the university he works at. Too closely affiliated on its own to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, having hopefully met the Heymann Standard. I came to this AFD with the assumption that a cursory source search would reveal the big fat nothing that these one-line substub article subjects always produce. But actually, there's quite a bit out there. His first major book is cited all over the place, and his second received a full review in a scholarly journal (and nontrivial references in a few other places). I slapped together a somewhat better, more thoroughly referenced version. It's still a stub, and I don't think it's going to get much better, but I do believe it now crosses the inclusion threshold. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sir Joseph, Alansohn, and SNUGGUMS: pinging the previous contributors to this deletion discussion, in an effort to determine if I've made sufficient improvements. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a tremendous improvement, but I'm still not sure what the claim of notability is. The lack of articles / books about Braiterman remains as an issue. I'm willing to consider changing my vote, but I'm not sure that we've crossed the line yet. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I echo all of what Alan just said Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Because he's an author in academia, I don't think we're going to see a lot of personal biographical details in reliable sources. There's quite a bit of discussion of his theology in the cited literature, though, which I think arguably gets us to WP:NAUTHOR #2 (for his concept of antitheodicy) or WP:PROF #1. The alternative would be to consider that his first book might be itself notable under WP:NBOOK #1 and #3, and that his second is possibly notably under NBOOK #1--but that he himself is not notable. That's a logically defensible position under policy, but it would result in two even stubbier articles without anything connecting them; all else being equal, this serves the reader better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I basically second the views of Alan and Snuggums. But that(1)-Lack of reliable sources & (2)-doubts about the claim of notability is a gray area!(Edit 1-Sorry for not strikethroughing the 1st point in the last edit.I did not notice by mistake earlier!Sorry for the inconvenience.)(Edit 2-I think the comment by Squeamish Ossifrage has to be accepted.It's no doubt a great point. Strikethroughing the 2nd part) Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 12:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The assertion that the citations are from unreliable self-published sources couldn't be further from the truth. Did you even look at Squeamish Ossifrage's improvements before writing that? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If my previous comment appears puzzling it is because ARUNEEK changed his or her comment after I had replied to it. Even after that change the comment is still obviously erroneous, as all of the sources are reliable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. Having stated that- just to take the journals- the peer reviewed Manchester Journal of Jewish Studies, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, A Journal of Jewish Art and Visual Culture, and Religious Education are self-published sources, apparantly ARUNEEK now believes them to be not reliable ones, either. Most curious. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakish delete. GS h-index of 6 slender, even for theology: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Squeamish Ossifrage has demonstrated clear notability. I don't think that h-index is relevant in this field. What counts is the nature of the citations by others of Braiterman's work. Many of them are not citations that simply substantiate assertions, as are most citations in the natural sciences, but are examples of other academics responding to or otherwise engaging with what he has written. There are also examples of responses to Braiterman outside academic writing shown by the news search linked above. I would also add that there are reviews of Braiterman's books in Theology[1], The Journal of Religion[2] and AJS Review[3]. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've cited those reviews in the article. I find it difficult to understand why, if they are here to build a neutral encyclopedia, some editors piled in so quickly with "delete" opinions in a deletion discussion about a Jewish theologian who has opposed a particular view about what opinions Jews are supposed to hold, and restated those positions in the face of clear evidence of notability. Jews, just like anyone else, are allowed to hold differing opinions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These are major academic books, and he is notable as WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. h index is utterly irrelevant in the humanities. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - full professor in a high-prestige field at a major university. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not criteria to satisfy WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep -- well referenced article at this point, with notability clearly demonstrated. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the reviews mentioned by 86.17.... meet NAUTHOR 3 last clause, there are other paths in policy that also demonstrate notability, but I think NAUTHOR 3 is probably the most clean-cut. --joe decker^talk 14:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the article has been completely re-written; I don't believe that further discussion is necessary as the OP has withdrawn the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the comment above. This was relisted unnecessarily by an editor whose speciality seems to be to perform unnecessary relists, and should have been closed a week ago. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, you might want to ask an admin to look at this and close "early." 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:51, 1 November 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.