Talk:Gil Student/Archive 1

Vanity page?

This page should be deleted because it is a Vanity Page--PinchasC 3 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Vanity pages are pages written about a person by the same person. This is not the case here. R. Gil Student didn't create this page. Before the Slifkin controversy, one might have been able to make that argument (regardless of the original author), but since his company Yashar Books has been mentioned in prominent newspapers such as the New York Times, I don't think it would be such. Does this page need a LOT of improvement? Yes. Does it need to be deleted? No.--Josiah July 9, 2005 00:51 (UTC)

Three-time revert

PinchasC has twice removed the following neutral sentence: "According to Student, the claim is heretical."

I wondered to myself: Could my memory have failed me? Does Student not say this? So I took the trouble of looking it up. It appears on page 99 in the conclusion. The link is here.

I will not get into a three-time revert war with PinchasC. So if he reverts again I will let others take care of it. But I think there is no more doubt about why he is trying to delete this article. Dovi 10:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was sure that Student had written otherwise, I now see that you are correct. --PinchasC 10:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Attitudes towards rabbinic authority

Actually, PinchasC, I think the books being republished, as well as the internet controversy, is most important because of what it shows about segments of the Haredi (not modern Orthodox) communities, and their relationships to "gedolim" in general and to Rav Elyashiv in particular.

It is not just the "modern Orthodox" who opposed the ban and were happy that the book was reissued. The controversy seemed to expose a secondary rift between Israeli haredim versus a significant segment of the American haredi world.

Nor is the point that "Yashar" is davka a modern Orthodox publisher (though it quite often seems to lean that way), but that an Orthodox publisher of any bent went out of its way to do this. That is a first.

What do you say?Dovi 10:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The way it is currently rewritten would be better than before. However the American Gedolim for example Feldman (see the blogs about his latest letter) agree with the others. My point with Modern Orthodox, was that regarding the people running the publishing house not the books it prints. --PinchasC 10:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

I put back in the criticism, including a link to the attributed insult against Edah. The literal quotation had been considered inacceptable in the article before, I'll put it into the discussion site instead. Under [1] he says "I am Yeshiva University-trained but I'm not "one of those" (you know, those gender-bending, halakhah-twisting liberals)." (he does link to the Edah website)

I hate to say this, and it is impossible to tell for sure anyways, but when I followed your link and read it, I thought it is actually tounge-in-cheek, mild sarcasm:

I am an Orthodox rabbi without portfolio. In other words, I am technically a rabbi but I've sold out to the big-bucks world of finance and do little teaching and no paskening (anything I say about halakhah should be confirmed by your rabbi before being put into practice). I am Yeshiva University-trained but I'm not "one of those" (you know, those gender-bending, halakhah-twisting liberals). ("liberals" links to Edah)

Sometimes we forget our sense of humor... Dovi 14:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

VFD

The vfd decision is boilerplated below: Dunc|☺ 14:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dunc|☺ 14:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Gil_Student

because it is a Vanity Page Eliezer 4 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

• Delete --Eliezer 4 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
• Delete --Hullbr3ach 4 July 2005 01:18 (UTC)
  • Discount vote possible sockpuppet. Dunc|☺ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)
• Comment A Google search for "Gil Student" returns over 5,000 results, and his book is for sale on Amazon (although it is #921,113 in sales). Undoubtedly the page was written by him or by an admirer, but he does have some borderline notability. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)
• Keep. Published author is sufficient for me. Pburka 4 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
  • Vote withdrawn. I didn't realise Amazon carried books from vanity presses. Pburka 4 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. According to Jayjg, not technically vanity, so I'll go with "not notable" instead. According to Amazon, the publisher is Universal Publishers, which appears to be a vanity press. Student's book is available in their bookstore here. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 05:40 (UTC)
• Comment In considering this, I also noted that the book appears to be published by a vanity/subsidy publisher, which, in my opinion, makes notability questionable. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. Authors need to pay to get a book vanity published. I didn't notice a price listing on the site in question. Seems to be a simple non-vanity POD publisher to me. Has crappy amazon ranking though. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:12 (UTC)
  • Regarding his book he gives it out for free on his website moshiachtalk.com --Eliezer 4 July 2005 11:28 (UTC)
    • No he doesn't. He allows you to download all the chapters, which is something else. Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
  • Allowing someone to download your entire book in ebook format for free is the same as giving out your book for free. --Eliezer 6 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. The Gideon Bible people give out books for free; Student supports Open Access, and provides a number of scholarly works in electronic form for free, including one of his own. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)
  • It costs $495 to submit a manuscript to this vanity publisher. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:40 (UTC)
• Delete as per Eliezer--nixie 4 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
• Delete: A person who would have a vanity publication between covers would look for one on the web. Even if he were published by a commercial press, publication really isn't enough, or at least it hasn't been, as "published authors" outnumber the sands on the beach or the stars in the sky. The question is whether he needs a biography, due to his work. I think the answer is clearly no. Geogre 4 July 2005 12:17 (UTC)m
• Delete. Sure seems like a vanity page to me. Google comes up with a lot of stuff written by him, but not much written by others about him. RoySmith 4 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
• Comment. While Gil Student may not qualify for a biographical article under Wikipedia's criteria, he isn't the author of this page, so technically it's not "vanity". Jayjg ^(talk) 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
  • Who says he isn't the author, it was made by someone anonymous. --Eliezer 6 July 2005 01:46 (UTC)
    • I say Student is not the author, because I contacted him and spoke with him about it. He was rather bemused by the whole thing, and seemed a bit embarassed that it had been created in the first place. I suspect it is the work of an over-zealous admirer. In any event, Student didn't think he really qualified for a Wikipedia article, and had no objections to its deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 6 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
      • Never write a wikibio on a person you admire. Reminds me of the cantorcruft debacle. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Guy is doing significant work, but the article does not bear this out sufficiently. Also quite brave for republishing Slifkin's books in the face of a ban. JFW | T@lk 6 July 2005 17:38 (UTC)
  • Brave? the rabbis were Orthodox, Gil is modern orthodox. --Eliezer 7 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)
    • Yes, brave. Student is Orthodox just like the Rabbis who condemned Slifkin. He has been roundly criticized by many of his acquaintances, who are against making waves, and his sons' principal wasn't very happy. The possibility of personal consequences was and is real. Also, he didn't publish the book, he just distributed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I like Gil personally (and I really do), he's not notable for wikipedia's purposes. An excellent blog and a small publisher are not sufficient for mention. (that said, read his blog!) Mikeage 7 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This does not meet any of the stated categories for deletion. If there are more important rabbis without Wikipedia pages, just write pages for them! Republishing Rabbi Slifkin's works in the face of the ban alone makes his work important enough for a Wikipedia listing. CharlieHall
  • Discount vote possible sockpuppet. Dunc|☺ 14:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that sounds like it might be interesting. Add these facts (verified and with sources, of course), describe the controversy or whatever and its impact on Orthodox Jewry as a whole, and I might reconsider my vote. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 7, 2005 22:29 (UTC)
    • Slifkin himself has no Wiki page, and probably shouldn't. If Student's only merit is putting out controversional books with a small readership, then he may not be notable. Also note that Special:Contributions/Charlie Hall has only one edit: this vote. JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 23:25 (UTC)
      • I'll take your word for it, although this sounds like rationale for a delete vote, and you voted to keep (however weakly). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 8, 2005 00:35 (UTC)
      • Apparently Slifkin's works have sold quite well, even moreso since the ban, which increased interest in them in Modern Orthodox circles. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 04:52 (UTC)
• Delete. Personally, I think Gil Student, a very knowledgeable rabbi, is at least more interesting than all the zillions of athletes in Wikipedia. He is a mover and shaker in the Jewish community, I own his book myself, which addresses a huge controversy in Jewish circles. No doubt he will eventually warrant a Wikipedia article, though as the article stands now, it doesn't really meet notability criteria. I do empathize with the zealous fan who authored this article though, I'm a fan of Rabbi Student too : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 7 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)
• Keep Gil Student is a famous character in the Jewish Internet and plays a major role in the Slifkin controversy that seperates ultraorthodox groups from liberal observant Jewry. (Unsigned by 84.160.245.154)
• Keep Rabbi Student is quite famous and also important enough for a wikipedia article. But it definitely has to be updated to a more neutral and descriptive article. (Unsigned by 84.160.236.192)
• delete as per Eliezer- He is not notable compared to any of his teachers who do not have pages. And his book publishing, blog, and following is vanity. (Unsigned by 141.150.109.42)
• Strong keep - Rabbi Student has become very influential and well known, and his involvement in the Slifkin ban controversy is already of serious historical interest. (By the way, I write this though I often disagree with Rabbi Student's views.)Dovi 07:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG keep--Josiah 14:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

A page for Slifkin too

Above, JFW wrote that "even Slifkin probably shoudn't have a page." Why not? This controversy is shaking the Orthodox world, and may even reinforce both a sociological split and have huge theological repercussions for the entire idea of rabbinic authority in Orthodoxy. It is of very serious historical interest. Just because something happens over the web and on blogs doesn't mean it isn't "real". This is real.

The publisher of books that were banned in the midst of a world-wide controversy is certainly noteworthy. Dovi 07:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

While the person who put this article up for VfD is indeed member of Chabad, it must nevertheless be judged on its own merits, regardless of the motivations of the nominator. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dovi, there is something called vanity and non-notable, this exists in this situation to try to argue against it by saying that it is because of his stance on chabad is avoiding the issue and an attempt to change the subject. This has nothing to dow ith anything that Student has said or done in the past. Writing a book that is published by a vanity press isn't notable and neither is running a small blog. Even printing a controversial book in his own printing press doesn't make someone notable. --Eliezer 08:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The book is not just "controversial." It is at the center of a world-wide controversy. A Cherem of the type that happened here is not unusual at all, by the way. What is different is that this cherem was followed by an internet rebellion, one that included the active participation of rabbis and scholars from around the world! This has never happened before, it is of extreme historical interest, and yes, Eliezer, it is of extraordinary importance.

Of course, Jayjg, I agree that the case should be decided on its own merits. But the fact that that has not happened on this page is a cause for concern. Wikipedia has the stats on every mediocre athlete in the country, and they are not deleted as "vanity" pages.

Eliezer, I would like to point out to you that I am not a big fan of Gil Student, and in fact his extreme views on Chabad are part of what I oppose. But there is no denying that he has played an important role in extremely important events recently. Dovi 08:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

What is a vanity page?

This page is listed for deletion as a vanity page. However, it meets none of the requirements for a vanity page:

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.

The article as it stands is salient and not promotional. Even if Gil Student wrote the page (which he apparently did not) it would not be a candidate for deletion.

In fact - and this is cute! - even if Gil S. himself thinks he is not noteworthy enough for a page (as Jayjg wrote above), that is not reason for deletion :-)!

Since there are no "vanity page" grounds for removal in terms of policy, I move that we dismiss this whole motion. It is not even worthy of a vote. Dovi 08:53, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dovi, this isn't how wikipedia works, you get a chance to vote which you have, and so does everyone else. Apparently based on the votes placed until now nearly all votes that are allowed to be counted say that it's either vanity or not notable. --Eliezer 09:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It could be that some people really weren't fully aware of the events going on that Student was involved in, or of why they are so important. I dare say that no one would consider deleting information about actors in a controversy of similar importance regarding another religious or policial issue. The article as it currently stands is quite clearly not "vanity" and is quite notable. If fact, more articles should be added on the topic, including Nosson Slifkin and cleaning of Jewish creationism (though this controversy goes well beyond general Jewish creationism in its importance). The article on Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv should also be expanded to reflect this and other important charamim that he has decreed. Dovi 10:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

To quote JFW above "If Student's only merit is putting out controversional books with a small readership, then he may not be notable." --Eliezer 11:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, their readership is huge now, precisely because of what the article described. They are having a publishing boom. Second of all, I respectfully disagree with the notion that publishing banned books in general is not of notable interest. Actually, it is of great interest to many (witness the "Banned books" section at the "Online Books Page"). Even JFW was hesitant ("may not"), because this really goes against all intuition. Thirdly, this banning controversy, especially because of the immediate and publically defended reissue, goes well beyond a general cherem of the Rav Shach or Rav Elyashiv type.Dovi 11:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Votes for undeletion

I left the following note on the talk page of the admin who deleted this at PinchasC's request:

From your comments on PinchasC's talk page, it seems you may have understood the entire debate backwards. Gil Student is not a creationist, nor is the book that he published. Rather, Gil Student stood up publically for a book that had been excommunicated by Jewish creationists through the internet, and reissued it. The excommunication partially backfired because of the internet! This is the first time in modern history anyone has done something like that.

You deleted the article in the middle of an ongoing debate, minutes after two serious votes in favor had been cast. The two admins were not supporting deletion. I only noticed the Vfd today, and began to both improve the article - showing its relevance - as well as create a serious, factual discussion that didn't really exist before. Plus you certainly didn't look at all for the kind of "rough concensus" that an admin is meant try for.

It seems to me that some ardent sockpuppets gave the defense a bad name on this one, hurting their own cause. Apparently Student also has a fan club. But that shouldn't be ammunition in the pocket of someone who wants to censor information because of his own biases (PinchasC wants to eliminate Student's critical view of Chabad, as his biased edits today demonstrated several times). Dovi 18:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The deletion did not take into account any of the points in the discussion that took place shortly before it happened. Most of the opinions expressed did not take that discussion into account either. (Unfortunately, I only discovered this VfD today.)

The following is an open list. Please sign if you favor Undelete. If and when there are enough votes they will be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.

• Dovi 18:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• I originally voted to delete, but at the time I wasn't really cognizant of how big the Slifkin controversy is, nor Rabbi Student's role in it. I knew about Yashar Books and the book Rabbi Student wrote relating to the Rebbe controversy, which taken by itself seemed to me to be only borderline notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. However, Dovi makes a compelling argument, and I would have at least liked to have seen a little more discussion before the article was deleted so quickly. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Quickly? It was on VfD for 6 days. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I'm more referring to the fact that it seemed serious discussion was only just beginning as editors who had something relevant to say became aware of the vfd. I would have liked to have heard more of what they had to say. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
      • There were plenty of editors with "something relevant to say," including myself. Jayjg was in contact with Student himself. "Student didn't think he really qualified for a Wikipedia article" pretty much does it for me. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 00:59, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
        • Sure, sure I'm not discounting what you or Jayjg said, I meant relevant discussion began from editors advocating "keep". I think that the goal here is to allow a hearing of both sides and come to consensus, rather than hurry up and vote something out in a set number of days. I didn't feel that strongly for "delete" in this case, and I don't feel strongly for "keep" now, but I do feel strongly about all sides being heard before action is taken. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
          • MPerel, This was all done already it was up for longer than it was needed to be on the VFD, and both sides were heard and discussed, this is how wikipedia works and you must accept that. As I've written below, perhaps you should focus your energies on writing a NPOV article about Nosson Slifkin who is the author of the books involved. --PinchasC 01:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Dovi, the pages on VFD need to be listed for 5 days only. Furthermore as it is clear all these stuff that you were saying was originally mentioned by either Jayjg and JFW, and discussed before you came around. And as a final warning before I file a complaint please stop with all personal attacks. This is the third one. --PinchasC 00:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Something to keep in mind as well is that he didn't write those books involved in the Slifkin controversy, rather he is a partner in a publishing house that he started with a few people that started distributing it. This, as discussed at length doesn't make you notable for a wikipedia article. Iw ould suggest that you focus your energies on Nosson Slifkin as he is the person that should be written about. Slifkin is the one that may be considered "brave" by some and Slifkin is the one that all this attention should be focused on, if indeed notable which we will see if that can be proven. --PinchasC 01:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

See the folowing statements from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion

• "Please don't list articles for undeletion just because your position was not endorsed on Votes for Deletion. "
• "Pages that were recently deleted in accordance with policy after being listed on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion should not be listed unless new information has come to light." --PinchasC 01:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)