Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yehuda Kolko

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. — FireFox (UTC) 11:01, 28 May '06

• Delete Not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Yossiea 13:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second User:Yossiea's nomination for the following reasons: (1) Kolko is presently being sued [1] making this a very dangerous and delicate subject for Wikipedia and (2) the article is clearly a POV attempt to add fuel to the legal issues about Kolko and (3) it therefore runs headlong into violating two crucial Wikipedia policies stated in: (a) Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons ("Well-founded complaints about biographical articles from their subjects arrive daily in the form of e-mails to the Wikipedia contact address, phone calls to the Foundation headquarters and to Jimbo Wales, and via postal mail. These people are justifiably upset when they find inaccurate or distorted articles, and the successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter requiring ongoing involvement of OTRS volunteers and paid staff" ETC), and also (b) legal concerns and the potential violation of Wikipedia:Libel ("For this reason, all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." ETC) (4) Finally, Kolko is not a prominent rabbi. IZAK 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems to be the epitome of an entry that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Mississippifred 9:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn.--Jusjih 13:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 09:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If (still unproven) criminal and civil allegations against him are his only "claim" to noteworthiness, then there is no reason to keep this article. --Leifern 10:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Bring up to appropriate standard or Delete. The concept of such an article is reasonable. This is, of course, what Wikipedia is about, getting any and all information on topics and making them accessable to the public, albiet in a proper standard. If we do not have a proper page, anyone interested will have to inquire into court documents. Evolver of Borg 10:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Danny 10:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Pecher ^Talk 14:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IZAK's explanation. Avi 15:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IZAK and Leifern. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since when does an encyclopedia have articles on every suspected molester? Since when do we consider blog entries reliable sources? Totally agree that this is entry is totally unsuitable. JFW | T@lk 17:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per IZAK and JFW, this is not worthy for an encyclopedia. --Shlomke 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable pedophile rabbi. 129.10.244.136 20:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Leifern and IZAK, particularly due to the WP:Libel issue. There is no indication that the case has even gone to trial yet, let alone reached a verdict. A mere "allegation" or "civil lawsuit" against a person is completely NN (unless the person is already notable, and even then it's questionable.) The only possible notability at this point is that he is an "Orthodox Jewish rabbi", making this a Man-Bites-Dog story. The article itself alludes to its NN, by acknowledging that the "impact [of the allegations] remains unclear." Bottom line: Delete now and revisit the issue once the criminal/civil cases are concluded and the societal impact becomes clear. --Nmagedman 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.4.151 (talk • contribs) May 25, 2006.
• Delete although mainly because notoriety and notability aren't the same thing. And as the notoriety is based on unproved allegations, it's got to go.Ac@osr 21:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it in, and let the jewish world beware that the good old days are over, if you molest a child you will be plastered all over the net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.35.173 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Keep I just got round to read back issues of New York magazine today. This already seems to be a big deal in the Orthodox community, judging by the letters page of the last issue, and its only likely to get bigger. About Izak's objections, I can say in response to both points, that (a) distortions and (b) potentially libellous statements are easily eliminated by Our Friend The Neutral-making Phrase, namely (say it with me) "It is alleged". If really terrified, add "unsubstantiated" and "in certain quarters". About Nmagedman's objections, yes, the point is that he is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, with charge of a yeshiva. That's why it is a news story, and thats why it seems people are discussing it and would wish to read about it. Your objection is the same as all the people who vote to delete the articles about that kid who disappeared in Aruba because the only possible notability comes from her being a pretty blonde. Yes! Tragically, it does. Irritates me too, but nothing to be done. Live with it. The world is imperfect. Etc., etc. Hornplease 08:23, 27 May 2006 (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.