Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)

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. — CharlotteWebb 15:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medzhibozh (Hasidic dynasty)

This article brings no more new information than the Zhvill (Hasidic dynasty) page or the Yitzhak Aharon Korff page. Meshulam 21:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Em-jay-es 06:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• this shot article should not be deleted - it is at least as pertinent and has at least as much new information as numerous other articles on smaller hasidic dynasties.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Agetraer (talk • contribs)
  • If you read what I wrote above, you would realize that it is pre-empted by other articles, and dose not bring any new info that the other 2 articles lack. --Meshulam 00:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Em-jay-es 06:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing my vote per the discussion below. Em-jay-es 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I added this article because I couldn't find one at all on wikipedia on Medziboz. All of Hasidus started with the Baal Shem Tov in Medziboz. I was looking to get in touch with the current Medziboz Rebbe and couldn't find it until I indirectly got to Zhvil, so I thought there should at least be some link and background on the Baal Shem Tov connecting this lineage. That information, and some of the rest which I added, is not found anywhere else in wikipedia. I do not think this should be deleted. --ChosidFrumBirth 09:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Here is what I have written to Meshulam: You should avoid this kind of move (the hasty nomination to delete) because it's a slippery slope and could lead to the nomination for and deletion of similar articles about smaller Hasidic dynasties - by people who are not experts and don't care - with unintended consequences. Votes to delete are open to the world and you are inviting people who have no idea what this topic is about at all to cast a vote, which is very unfair and lacking insight. It seems that you may have been better off trying to add a {{merge to}} template or considered MERGING the material at some point perhaps and WAITED (at least a month!) to do so. You should also have first started a discussion at a number of places where people who know something about this topic could have given their intelligent input, such as at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week. Or you could have contacted other editors who deal with topics like this to solicit their views. This action of your is extreme and I do not condone it. I urge you to withdraw this nomination. Thank you. (I am cross-posting this message on a couple of relevant places, to get people's attention.)IZAK 10:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If there is too much overlap with other articles, the merge process should be used. Deletion is for material that has no business being in Wikipedia in the first place. Even the nominator is not saying that.--agr 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - No Reason to delete.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep no reason to delete has been advanced - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it qualifies for a "Speedy" keep; "Strong" may be more appropriate -- Avi 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy is what I meant. The nominator has not advanced a rationale for deletion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Article has encyclopædic value, and can be further expanded with research. Avi 12:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Since when is overlap a criterion for deletion? It should either be kept or merged, but not deleted. Can anyone even cite a real policy reason for deleting? -- Sholom 13:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I have a connection to the Rebbe's office and was asked to supply some pictures, which I have now done, and I noticed the discussion -- hopefully the new pictures from Medziboz and about the Rebbes will help lead to a solid 'keep', which seems obvious, to me at least. --SharonH 13:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per the others. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per IZAK. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like merging the articles has become the best option. I will explain my only objection: Mezibuz (or, as we have spelled it here Medzhibozh) is a city that is significant to every Chassidic sect. By making an article identifying Mezibuz with one specific dynasty, to the exception of othes, is a problem. This is similar to what would happen if I decided that I was the King of Camelot, and had one of my 2 followers write a wikipedia article amending the Camelot page that read "after that while Lancelot thing, Meshulam became King of Camelot." Ignoring the accuracy of the claim (that is, assuming that the Zhviller Rebbe of Boston is also the Mezibuz Rebbe, and that this claim is not fraught with error), the claim is misleading. Mezibuz has a rich history that has nothing to do with a specific dynasty that was established in Boston. I feel that linking the Medzhibozh article to the Zhvill article gives too much importance to a figure who is essentially a lightweight in the Jewish world. --Meshulam 19:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as is . I don't agree with Meshulam one bit. It's not Rabbi Korff's fault that he is a direct descendant of the Baal Shem Tov and that his grandfather, great grandfather, etc., etc. inherited the Baal Shem Tov's home and shul, but that does make him different from the other offshoots. Meshulam says Mezibuz has a rich history that has nothing to do with a specific dynasty -- so does Boston, so do many other places, but that doesn't preclude a dynasty that began there.

Neither is it relevant that other dynasties have roots in Mezbuz, simply because the Baal Shem Tov was from there. There is a distinct line and separate dynasty here. Ignoring Meshulam's sarcasm, which is inappropriate if we are really looking for the truth here, Rabbi Korff did not unilaterally decide to become King of Camelot. The fact is that, unlike all the other dynasties and rebbes Meshulam would merge, his grandfather was actually born in Mezbuz, in the Baal Shem Tov's house, to a father who was the Mezbuz Rebbe and who inherited that house and title from his father, and he from his father, and back to Reb Boruch, the Baal Shem Tov's grandson. That is recognized and acknowledged by ALL the other Rebbes that I know of, including the Boyaner, Zviller, Skverer, Chernobyler, Foltichaner, Skolyer, etc., etc. who joined the late Talner Rebbe in strongly encouraging Rabbi Korff to become Rebbe and fill his grandfather's place, who view him as a major figure not a "lightweight", and who are obviously in a much better position to know and judge than Meshulam is, and it makes the Mezbuz Hasidic dynasty distinct. Meshulam's comments are insulting and show a bias and personal opinion. I don't know what happened between him and the Rebbe, or what he has against him, but this is just not acceptable and not a credit to wikipedia. --ChosidFrumBirth 20:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I don't see any problems with it. The topic deserves its own page and, in time, it will have more information as wikipedians edit the hell out of it.Valley2city 22:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.--רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above --Shirahadasha 01:46, 16 October 2006 (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.