Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lev tahor
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 Merge to Shlomo Helbrans. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 00:14Z
[edit] Lev tahor
This group is a tiny cult that has been denounced by all groups within normative Hasidic Judaism that even bother to take note of its existence. Its leader Shlomo Helbrans (also nominated for deletion) has been accused of various crimes, see articles about Helbrans on Google. This article (actually it's a three line stub) says it has "around a dozen families" that is meaningless. A block association has more people than that and they don't get articles on Wikipedia. This is a clear case of WP:NN and nowhere nearly enough WP:V. IZAK 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for above reasons. IZAK 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Helbrans. Seven NYT articles mention the yeshiva and that's prenty of WP:V, unlike any old block association, but the mentions are weak and only connected to Helbrans. Therefore, an article about the organization is probably not feasible, whereas an article on the individual is perfectly feasible. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Helbrans unless there is an article instead of a line by end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Shlomo Helbrans. Based on the reliable sources Tragic Baboon has identified, agree that this topic and Helbrans are interconnected and notability appears to focus on Helbrans. --Shirahadasha 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- keep/merge--whichever fits best. I think WP should accept any organized religious group as notable, because otherwise we are making a distinction that is perhaps somewhat beyond our capacities--we are not the ultimate Judge in theological matters. DGG 06:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, as a religious movement it's beyond insignificant. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 18:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am reposting my response here as it applies: Hi DGG: While "Wikipedia" may not have the "capability" to judge -- yet knowledgeable editors about the subject of rabbis, Jews and Judaism, do have this capabilty. If someone were to say that the Earth is flat or that there is life on Mars, would you then say "oh well, Wikipedia does not have the capabilty to judge if the Earth is flat or round or oblong, or that there is or is not life on Mars"? Obvioulsy not! It would be the editors and writers, most known to their peers on Wikipedia, as having reliable knowledge about the subject at hand to venture and give forth either credibility or plausibity about that subject. If one were to follow the logic of your argument to its ultimate conclusion then NO article would ever be deleted from Wikipedia because, after all (using your argument) "Wikipedia does not have the capability of judging, or the ethical merit" of the subject/s -- which would then in effect mean that once editors write anything it cannot be nominated for deletion, 'cause after-all who are we mere mortals to judge articles on Wikipedia about anything. Finally may I say, the biggest rebuttal to your argument here is that Wikipedia assumes the exact opposite of what you argue, because in cases of doubt, there are in fact templates like {{Expert}} and {{Expert-subject}} that opnely request and admit: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject... [a relavant]] Wikiproject... may be able to help recruit one..." See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Expert Request Sorting. And indeed we have a very healthy and active Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism with about a hundred members to help us do so. IZAK 12:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Group is not notable in and of itself Avi 13:08, 8 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.
