Deletion of Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein

Comment: WP:V emphasizes peer review. This individual has two sets of peers: academic peers and religious peers. He is entitled to an article if |notable among either set, even if neither tells us much about his childhood or other details of his personal life. Reliable sources among experts ''in the field'', not solely among mainstream media, determine notability here. Otherwise we'd have to delete virtually all articles on philosophers, scientists, and many other categories, whose mainstream media coverage is also limited. For this reason, I agree with
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: If his thoughts, writings, and life story have been picked up sufficiently by third-party |reliable sources, it simply isn't the business of Wikipedia to inquire whether this is due to their merits or to marketing strategy. |Notability is not a moral judgment. I would stick to arguments about whether there are or are not sufficient sources of sufficient reliability and scope and not let issues of motivation get involved. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: I cannot help but notice, despite the very large number of edits to the article, that there is still not a '''single''' |reliable source.  (And ''please'', before venting on how the sources are ''"Obviously"'' reliable, take a few minutes to read the guideline to see what "reliable source" ''means'').  Self-published articles, trivial ''en-passant'' mentions, one-liner quotes and blog entries do '''not''' qualify.  At this point, the '''only''' argument for notabiliy set forward sums up to "he is a Jewish Orthodox rabi so the rules applied to everyone else do not apply to him because he's ''obviously'' notable and there is no need to source that".I see a lot of "sources", none of which establish notability, even in the aggregate.  Many of the so-called sources do not even ''mention'' the rabbi!  Or are written ''by'' him.  I see a lot of special pleading, and a lot of "but he's an Orthodox Rabbi".  I see a lot of accusations of bad faith, and a lot of cries of wikilawyering.Orthodox Rabbis are '''not''' automatically notable.  Whether the topic of an article is an Orthodox Rabbi or a Buddhist dancer, the criterion are '''and MUST be''' the same.  &mdash;&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: this article about a most notable rabbi that meets all the criteria of ,  and . A simple http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Yitzchok+Adlerstein%22&btnG=Google+Search Google search for "Yitzchok Adlerstein" proves his fame beyond any shadow of a doubt. Thank you
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:CITE||WP:N)