Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No Consensus. the_undertow talk 06:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman

Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Does not cite any sources, and is full of original research by banned user Daniel575. Has been tagged since 2/2007. Yossiea (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Yossiea (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources using Google. I couldn't even find sources to verify that he is indeed a rabbi at the synagogue named, and if he is, being a rabbi, even at a large synagogue, does not in itself confer notability. I welcome users who find better sources than I did. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Article does not attempt to assert nobility. If not speedied, than delete per WP:N and WP:V No more bongos 17:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • My error. Being a member of the BaDatz Eidah HaChareidis is enough to indicate significance. -- Avi 22:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a huge mistake to delete this article about one of the most significant and notbale Haredi rabbis in Jerusalem. Perhaps that he is alive makes the task of sources a little harder because usually most Haredi rabbis and Hasidic rebbes get known about 100 years after they pass on. I cannot fathom why the nominator did not do better research. I'll try to add a few sources. IZAK 12:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply. As a non-Jewish person reading this article, I did not understand why this person is notable; if the words "Haredi" or "BaDatz" are supposed to signal notability to me, they went right past me. If there's a way to make this man's importance more clear to a general readership, that would be really helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi FisherQueen: The word "Haredi" is not significant but the fact that this rabbi is a member of one of the the highest Haredi rabbinical courts, together with not more than about five other such rabbis, makes him very notable. I have now inserted a few Jewish media references in the article to illustrate that. Nothing in the article is exaggerated, it's quite modest actually, just states the facts about someone who is regarded as a leader by tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Haredi Jews in Israal. I know that it may be hard for a non-Jew to assess the importance of any rabbi. How many do you know or have you studied? Just as a non-medical expert would be hard put to explain the workings of the nervous system to a layman, so tread cautiously. There is also the factor, that often one group of Jews (and editors) may dislike another group's rabbis, and vice versa, so that tendency needs to be watched and may be misunderstood from an outside perspective. IZAK 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply and question Thanks for clarifying his importance. Given that tens or hundreds of thousands of people consider him a spiritual leader, is there a reason that google-searching "Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman" yields so few useful results? Should I be googling using Hebrew characters, for example? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment' The New York times recently mentioned (See [1]) an increase in the market in Israel for products certified by Haredi rabbinical councils, using as its lead example a cell phone certified for its inability to connect to the internet (which as the article explains is shunned by many Haredi Jews). The article mentions the Badatz. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi again, FisherQueen: You have hit upon a huge dilemma perhaps without realizing it. I would say that you lack two fundamental insights into modern-day Haredi life in general, especially to those in Israel, that pertain to your question. One is that Haredim and their leaders do not function like Western leaders. They literally despise the media and the academic world. They do not allow their children to study secular studies. That is just a fact one must accept about them and their chosen lifestyle. The second factor is that they are vehemently opposed to the Internet and certainly to any form of mass publicity through it, and they have outright banned its presence in Jewish homes and allow it only very sparingly for business purposes under very tightly controlled environments. Parents are warned that their children will be kicked out of yeshivas if they allow them any Internet access. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. This is the same way that they have dealt with TVs in homes for decades with great success as no-one wishes to defy these rabbis and face social ostracism in those communities that they preside over. The net result of all this is that you will often find very little information on the Web about some of the presently most notable and highly-regarded rabbis, Hasidic rebbes and Jewish sages. Thus one must often rely on the barest of crumbs that would minimally satisfy Wikipedia's standards and criteria for how to verify notability. There is also the odd phenomenon on Wikipedia that some persons who are actually rogue "rabbis" and may have no standing in any Jewish community, can get articles because of the publicity that has been generated about them, but truly humble publicity-shy personalities may get shunted aside in the media blizzard. Actually, rabbis such Rabbi Ulman would surely be very happy that no articles are written about him anywhere on the Internet and certainly not on Wikipedia, so even though the author of this original article may be blocked from Wikipedia, he was actually sticking his neck out and taking a huge risk writing up any article about such a notable rabbi. So these kinds of situations require great care and inspection so that one does miss the forest for the trees. Thanks for giving this your considered attention. IZAK 05:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is yet another rabbi about whom a coherent article from reliable sources cannot be constructed. If I were less charitable, I would call this rabbicruft - but I am more charitable. -- Y not? 12:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • There is nothing wrong with the rabbi and the article is very coherent and a good beginning, like tens of thousands of articles it has promise. I cannot fathom why you think an article about this Gadol is "rabbicruft" of any kind? Your statement may also violate Lashon hara about a famous living Torah scholar, posek, and a leader of a significant sector of religious Jewry. Maybe some people suffer from too much "cruft" period, to be charitable when they should be. None is so blind... IZAK 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree membership on the Badatz, the highest court of the Edah HaChareidis, is sufficient notability to justify an article and I suspect this can easily be verified. Will check later. The Badatz is mentioned in several articles but does not yet have its own. It should. It should be noted that notable religious media and scholarship sources are reliable sources for notability within the field of religion. Notability is with respect to a field. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Agree the article could better explain the subject to a general audience. Would note that numerous articles in math, science, philosophy, and similar technical fields suffer from similar problems of too much technical jargon and yet are unquestionably encyclopedic subjects. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because of the judicial role, though it needs to be explained. DGG (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep this is a very important notable leader within the Yiddish speaking community, and since the newspapers talking about him are not printed online its hard to prove his notability. As for motives of the user who created it, he was not blocked because of this article but only because the nominator of this AfD among other users, one of which [2] has even used his sysop tools to speedily delete it, have harassed him and he fought back with personal attacks. so i ask the closers of this discussion to put all views in context--יודל 18:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Why do you always feel the need to use personal attacks to get your point across? Yossiea (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Answer I don't do this always and i try to stay away from Afd's in a whole, but i know this subject very good and i feel wikipedia can benefit from me now so i am being heard, lets not forget that the nominator, in this case user:Yossiea has given a rational for deletion that the creator is blocked. so in order for this subject to be a speedy keep we must establish the nomination rationales invalid, which i tried to explain, i am sorry U got offended this was not my intention. and i beg u to reconsider my intentions by following policy to assume good faith in others, I apologize for the inconvenience, i would delete it if somebody else, who has not said an opinion here thinks its a personal assault.--יודל 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • RFC My rationale was not based on the fact that the creator is blocked. Please read above, I wrote that there are no sources, and it is full of original research by Daniel. You are not AGF for me and Avi because you seem to have an agenda here on WP. Yossiea (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply Then please be so kind and remove this words by banned user from your nomination rationale, and i will delete my words as well. regarding yours and avi's opinion about my motivations it is also faulty u r clearly mistaken since u cannot name one single issue that is my drive, and i still urge u and avi to follow policy and assume good faith don't assume any bad in me please--יודל 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My suggestion would be to judge the article on its merits without regard to the identity or any possible subjective motivations of either the creator or the nominator. I perceive this as neither a speedy delete nor a speedy keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. IZAK 06:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The Hebrew wiki article on Edah Haredit lists all the heads of the court and the presidents, av beit din and rosh beit din. It does not list members unless they have written books or are known outside the community.This article has the trivial stuff- where he lives, that he gave a eulogy, but has no evidence of important legal decisions, books, or leadership. A quick hebrew google did not turn up anything. The English page for Edah Haredit--- Edah HaChareidis basically follows the same pattern. also the references in this article are not to articles about him but only passing mention in articles about other people. --Jayrav 00:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Jayrav: The point of the three citations in the article (which I found after careful examination) prove that he is notable, because only the most notable rabbis are ever granted the honor and privilege of delivering eulogies for the greatest sages, and the references cite where and for whom that has happened not once, not twice, but at least thrice, and probably more. It's a case of taking note of the "tip of the iceberg" about him. This is a good beginning and there is no doubt about his authority and role in Haredi community of Jerusalem. IZAK 12:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
    • According to the yiddish wiki he is youngest member of the court.--Jayrav 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
      • So what? US Chief Justice John Roberts has also broken many of "the youngest" records. Oh, and probably because he is young he can get around too. So being young is not a deficit as far as notabilty is concerned. IZAK 12:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Izak - That is why I listed it as a comment and not a vote. In 10 years, I have little doubt that he will be notable, it is these premature articles that create the arguments. I was just pointing out the practice of the Hebrew wiki- and not sure if it should play a role here.--Jayrav 15:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

that cretae

  • Comment. I'm afraid I'm still puzzled by the lack of sources. The sources on the article- none of them are articles about this person. In each of them, he gets only a mention. And the sources don't verify the information in the article; they tell us only that he once gave a eulogy, and that he presided over the death of the colleague. What was the source for the information in the article itself? And if this man is so clearly notable, where are the sources that have written about him, not just mentioned him in relation to someone else? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article needs to be better sourced, but it is difficult to find sources for Haredi figures. He is certainly notable. It would be nice if the article was fleshed out better.--Meshulam 21:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment On reflection this is striking me as a somewhat borderline case. The Hebrew Wikipedia approach of only including the main officers of notable Haredi rabbinical courts as notable due to their position alone does not strike me as unreasonable. Is there any literature reviewing or discussing his rabbinic scholarship? Are their any opinions or decisions he is known for? I understand that in addition to Badatz membership Ulman's claim to notability comes in part from what is described as his close relationship with the former head of the Edah HaChareidis and of the Dushinsky Hasidic dynasty. Do have any more information about this relationship or of his status within the Dushinsky Hassidim? Best, --Shirahadasha 20:23, 13 November 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.