Deletion of Mordecai Tendler

Comment: Rabbi Tendler claimed that because a woman's testimony is not traditionally acceptable in rabbinical courts, there were no valid witnesses against him. The legal analysis involved in refuting this claim represents a signicant development in Orthodox Halakha. The notability of the incident from a Jewish point of view depends primarily on Rabbis Tendler's arguments and how they were handled. Every legal case involves allegations. The issue of how Orthodox Judaism handles harassment allegations in light of its rules regarding the Role of women in Judaism is simply not a tabloid issue. As the general media references show, the allegations which formed the basis of the Jewish-law issues received enough independent mainstream media press coverage to address  concerns. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordechai Gafni '''and''' Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aron Tendler: There has been a recent tendency to post articles on Wikipedia about disgraced and defrocked rabbis (similarly, see the Rabbi Mordecai Tendler article.) Hopefully this trend is not motivated by antisemitism. This is an entirely  individual, who practiced as a rabbi, but was forced to resign because of alleged sex scandals. This may be  and even  because not everything has been proven in a court of law and the intent of the article appears to be a one-sided smear to tar and feather this person online, with Wikipedia as the webhost, a violation of #ANARCHY (in the sense that Wikipedia is not the place to act out a grudge) and which also violates the writ and spirit of  as well. Note that :Category:Sex crimes ''only'' has a sub-category of :Category:People acquitted of sex crimes and it does ''not'' have a sub-category :Category:People accused of sex crimes or :Category:People convicted of sex crimes and certainly not :Category:Rabbis accused of sex crimes. Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:LIBEL||WP:NOR||WP:NOT||WP:NPOV)

Comment: If he is a nobody then he is |Not Notable. There are multiple sources about the allegations against him, not his importance. Please reconsider
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: The individual involved has been extensively covered, albeit in Jewish-oriented media, and the circumstances of the charges, his departure from the RCA and other circumstances regarding the overlap of Jewish and secular litigation systems make this a notable article. Any potential  issues need to be considered, but the high-profile nature of the charges and counterclaims does not detract from notability. There is no need to wait until any litigation is settled, as all claims must be supported by reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: as |WP:Not Notable. Even if all the allegations against him are proven true, I think it would be improper to have an article on him. Although I'm generally an inclusionist; I believe that people who are alive need to be really notable to merit an article; with the exception if it's needed for completion of a series (i.e. all Chasidic Rebbes, notable or not). In this case I think he is not notable at all. His claim to fame is being a grandson of a great man; so, we have many grandchildren of great men who are Rabbis and nobody would think of having an article on them. As to him being the editor of Igros Moishe; his role was minor, something like a copy editor compared to the real editor who was its author. I would describe his role as a midget compared to a giant. BTW, we would be better off, if he would have been less involved and just printed what his grandfather gave him. I think that the only thing notable about this article is its salaciousness (as in man bites dog). Shall we have an article on every clergyman who is caught disgracing his robe? If it has some historical content then maybe yes; but if not, I would say that Wikipedia is not the place to document someone’s wrongdoing just because he is a Rabbi or a Priest
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: In a previous edit dispute involving the The Awareness Center (See Talk:The Awareness Center) it was noted that because the Center is an advocacy organization it would be inconsistent with  to consider it an |uninvolved source for the allegations it makes, so would not use it as a source for any of the claims involved. However, the newspaper clippings etc. reproduced in the Awareness Center's article on the subject can be |cited directly and used as sources. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:cite)