Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:26, 8 November 2007

Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman

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

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Yossiea 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 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)

• 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 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)