Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch

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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 08:42Z

[edit] Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch

Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

User:David Spart created a new page called Chabad Messianism which was mostly content from the Yechi article and the controversy section of Chabad-Lubavitch. I believe that instead of having multiple articles on every aspect of the messianism and the controversy there should be one article on the controversy in chabad and perhaps a shorter article on the phrase of Yechi and if that gets too long than to further split as per WP:SIZE. Therefore I had moved his new article to Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch and merged in the rest of the controversy section of Chabad-Lubavitch. User:David Spart does not agree with this. I am therefore putting this article up for deletion, to see what the consensus would be. Should everything go back to the way it was before with all the controversies staying in the chabad-lubavitch article or should just the messianism page stay separate along with a separate Yechi page, or should the main article be controversies of chabad-lubavitch. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith nomination I created the Chabad Mechanism page because that is the true nature of the issue. If you read the Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch article you will note that the first section is unencylopdic blather about Chabad in general, and all the rest is either about of stemming from Chabad Messianism. PinchasC refused to allow me to write the article and kept deleting my material WHILE he knew it was still being written, despite requests. Chabad Messianism is worthy of a topic in its own right, check Google to get a taste. Numerous 'scholarly BOOKS and ARTICLES have been written on the topic from many perspectives, many of them peer-reviewed.
  • When the Yechi article was nominated for deletion there was a strong consensus to keep. Note that all Yechi is is the mantra that Chabbad Messianists use. IF that deserves an article obviously Chabad Messianism does!
  • PinchasC did not grant my request to allow the article a week or two to stabilise before he nominated it for deletion, to perhaps merge in the Yechi stuff etc. He did not even nominate the article he wants to be deleted Chabad Messianism for deletion because he knows that it would stay. He instead has tried to confuse the issue further (a theme in his edits on Chabad topics) by nominating an article for deletion that no-one wants to be deleted, so that it will stay - since no consensus will be reached to delete - and he will then use that as a pretext for deleting the Chabad Messianism article WITHOUT consensus , based on this smokescreen.
  • If PinchasC wants Chabad Messianism deleted, then he should rescind this bad-faith nomination and nominate THAT article for deletion and stop merging articles without consensus.
  • PinchasC has long maintained the Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch article in the parlous state that it is now in. Notice that in all wikipedia there is only ONE PARAGRAPH of discussion about Chabad Messianism. One of the biggest controversies in Post-War Judaism has one measly paragraph that is then followed by a lengthy OFF THE POINT attacks on David Berger from some marginal sources! This is due to PinchasC's constant edit-warring to maintain the Chabad articles the way that he likes them. He is not a disinterested party, as anyone can see and should step back from editing Chabad articles for a while.
David Spart 13:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: David Spart, you seem to be well aware of the history in the articles on Chabad-Lubavitch and Yechi, as well as the fact that it's alway been a controversial subject among editors. Nevertheless, you chose to not discuss anything with other editors on the talk pages of this controversial subject.
You mention a number of complaints above on the articles and one of its many editors. Instead of singlehandedly creating these articles on a very controversial subject, I think it would have been a much better to discuss those matters on the talk pages first.
In other words: if you decided to "Be Bold", expect others to "Be bold" as well. Shlomke 18:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this well-sourced article that sheds much important light on the history of the inner-workings of an important world movement that, by now, cannot possibly be squeezed into one or two articles. This article will become an important component of Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism. IZAK 12:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean to keep it as Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch? Or only the Chabad Messianism section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch as is and expand on it as well. IZAK 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean to keep it as Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch? Or only the Chabad Messianism section? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Y'know, either is fine I guess, but I would prefer it as a separate article. Anyways, AfD is not the forum for this discussion. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this article and build a good article on Chabad Messianism by merging together the Messianist info and sources with Yechi and other stuff. David Spart 13:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this article and Delete Chabad Messianism. The latter is a subset of this article as of now. -- Avi 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The way it reads looks fine to me. AfD is not the proper venue for settling nomenclature brawls. Find consensus terms, use redirects, and have done with it. RGTraynor 15:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I would not be opposed to a merge or restructuring of these articles as long as content is preserved. In particular, I agree that the current duplication of content on multiple articles is a problem, and hence I agree that there should be only one article on the subject of Chabad messianism and either Chabad Messianism should redirect to Yechi or vice-versa, and in addition, there only needs to be a summary on the subject in Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch with a link to the main article. However, Chabad does have more than one controversy, and content on the other controversies, even if some characterize them as "blather", is notable, encyclopedic, and should not be deleted. --Shirahadasha 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*Delete. (Changing my vote to) Keep this article and delete Chabad Messianism as per Avi and IZAK. Shlomke 18:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep it all. All this moving around and such is making me think that there's an attempt to white wash the fact that there are legitimate controversies about Chabad. And I'm sure that's not the case. Kolindigo 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Shirahadasha. Afd is not the place to settle edit wars. John Vandenberg 08:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and create a seperate article on Chabad Messianism which may or may not need to have Yechi merged into it. I (as others have suggested above) have been concerned that editing articles on Chabad is closely controlled by admins such as PinchasC and Eliezer. This is not healthy. I sympathise with the creator of the above article, I recall similar problems about a year ago and see that nothing has changed. Well done for whoever managed to sneak the Yechi article past the gaurds - I asume that was in frustration at not being able to write a proper NPOV article on Chabad Messianism. juicifer 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Controversies of Chabad-Lubavitch and redirect Chabad Messianism to it or Yechi. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The multiplicity of articles seems in part to be due to an edit war. I'm not impressed by the references of any of these articles. Can anyone who wants to defend their own article be sure to (1) be sure that all the links actually work, (2) that any real published books have ISBNs? I'd allow all these articles to exist until there is one master article that is extremely well-sourced and is acceptable to the general Wikipedia community as being a good article. What's here now does not seem to meet the normal WP standards. For example, there are many claims made without in-line citations. We are supposed to take it on faith that the person writing the article is correct. The only article by David Berger that I could find was a web posting, that probably does not count as a reliable source by WP:RS. If this stuff is important, someone should be able to write an article that is well-sourced by general Wikipedia standards. EdJohnston 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps a merge with the main Chabad article will do? Anyway, this article is already very well off and has no problems, is very informative, well-cited, good structure, . I have heard tell of PinchasC nominating it under an ulterior motive (not sure). Noogster 03:07, 26 February 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.