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 per extensive coverage in reliable sources over several years raised in this debate. Davewild (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baruch Lanner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is not an article. It is yellow journalism and muckraking at its worst. This rabbi is not notable in and of himself. Unfortunately, there has been a pattern recently creating articles about disgraced Orthodox rabbis, (Mordecai Tendler, Mordechai Gafni, Aron Tendler) that focus exclusively on their sexual failings when these rabbis had no significant notabilty as rabbis prior to that. The present article only deals with sexual allegations and faults. Wikipedia WP:BLP is not about that. This is an entirely WP:NN individual, who practiced as a rabbi, but was forced to resign because of sex allegations. The intent of the article appears to be a one-sided smear to tar and feather this person, with Wikipedia as the webhost, a violation of WP:NOT#ANARCHY (in the sense that Wikipedia is not the place to act out a grudge) and which also violates the writ and spirit of WP:NPOV as well. Note that Category:Sex crimes only has a sub-category of Category:People acquitted of sex crimes and it does not have a sub-category Category:People accused of sex crimes or Category:People convicted of sex crimes and certainly not Category:Rabbis accused of sex crimes IZAK (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this isn't an article, it is a slander piece. Is the most notable thing reported on this man's life the alleged abuse? Sfacets 03:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is not simply alleged abuse. He was tried and convicted. Furthermore, the matter was enormously important within the community of which he was a prominent member. There are probably thousands of articles about people whose most notable achievement was criminal. There is no slander. Every assertion is sourced and could be sourced with multiple citations. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Urr Will, read carefully, he was not convicted for every last claim that was made in yellow journalism allegations against him. He was not even sentenced for anything major. It was not rape and it was not sodomy. Two girls testified that he brushed against their breasts and that he may have groped their breasts. People do this to their pets all the time! But I do not wish to make excuses for him or anyone. Keep your eye on the ball here. Here was a non-notable rabbi, who after years of being a charismatic youth leader, with lots of groupies after him, who went to jail for minor acts. For this he deserved seven years in jail? Noone expected such a high sentence and it made no sense. This is not the Boston Strangler and you are not the Grand Inquisitor. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't our job to judge the fairness of the criminal sentence. If the sentence was unjust that doesn't reduce the notability of the subject. The only task in this AfD is to decide whether the subject of the article has met the standards of notability as suggested in WP:NOTABILITY. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This subject easily meets that standard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yea, I'm sure that's all you had in mind. IZAK (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Many of the attack article appear to have been created by User:Lobojo, except for this one, created by User:Will Beback. Lobojo's edits appear to be a pattern of attacks against these rabbis. Sfacets 03:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is obvious that this aticle was intended as an attack article from the beginning - and that undue weight is given to the accusations/convictions. Evidence of this is the first edit made to the article which already contained exclusive information on the criminal procedings, and nothing on the biography of the subject. The article is about the subject, not his legal problems. Sfacets 23:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? He is notable for his criminal behavior and for the community's reaction to it (note, "his legal problems" seems a very roundabout way to refer to these issues — the legal problems are a result of the behavior, not the behavior itself). What do you think the article should describe, if not the things he is notable for? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is yet another of a series of well-sourced and thoroughly-documented articles that provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. While improvements are always possible, the article presents all details factually and neutrally, using independent sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails notability criteria. Dchall1 (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 03:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with modification. Like it or not, the article meets policy criteria for WP:BIO and WP:RS. It makes a clear notability claim and backs it up. However, I agree with nominator that the article should focus on encyclopedic aspects and should not gratuitously describe e.g. specific sex acts in detail. WP:NOT#NEWS makes clear that Wikipedia is intended to present substantive information, not tabloid journalism. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no strong opinion on this article, but I'm highly unconvinced by the nominator's reasoning. If someone is notable as a sex criminal, and also happens to be a rabbi, why must they be notable as a rabbi and their rabbinical achievements detailed in order to keep the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The abuse is, according to the article, not 'alleged' but proven, i.e. he has been convicted and sentenced to prison. I don't think all convicted criminals are notable, but the coverage of this incident combined with his position in the community and the publicity of sexual abuse cases against clergy make this particular criminal notable. Avruch^Talk 06:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep;. There are literally hundreds of news reports over the last seven years about this individual, including an entire investigative series in a major Jewish news weekly. It is not the case of a one-time event that was briefly in the news. The matter was described as "well-publicized" and a "watershed" event that had a major effect on the large organization of which the subject was an excutive. Many individuals become notable due to their crimes. WP has dozens of articles on Catholic priests who achieved notoriety simply due to their molestation convictions, not to mention numerous others who become famous for a single action. As the original creator, I resent the accusation that "the intent of the article appears to be a one-sided smear to tar and feather this person..." I had no such intent. In fact, more there were requests for this article to exist dating back at least to May. I think the article is entirely neutral. I've sought more information on his life, such as his education or birthdate, but haven't yet read all of the articles on him to locate that info. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lanner case not only stirred a rare public airing of the issue in the Jewish community, it also provoked intense debate in the community because Lanner allegedly abused scores of teenagers over 30 years....As public reaction swelled, the OU appointed the NCSY Special Commission on the Lanner case. In December 2000, the panel released part of a scathing 332-page report blaming OU leaders for ignoring reports of Lanner’s abuse and urging major organizational reforms....the NCSY has instituted mandatory sensitivity training for all teen advisers, has created "ombudsmen" to hear complaints and has put in place formal procedures regarding sexual misconduct.[1] That shows the importance of the subject. I also see that Wikipedia has been criticized for not mentioning the case.[2] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lanner was a nobody till two high school girls testified that he brushed against their breasts as their principal. All the other stuff are allegations not proven in a court of law, and Wikipedia should not be the place that becomes a holier-than-thou "Über-supreme court" that can over-rule any human being's right to fairness. This is not an article, it is a lynching. IZAK (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Lanner became notable when he was the executive of a large youth organization and a major Jewish news weekly ran an series of articles alleging serious child abuse by him over a 30-year period. He became even more notable when the organization he was involved with conducted a major investigation followed by a second major report. Here is more evidence of the importance of the subject within his former organization:
        • Weinreb, a rabbi and psychotherapist, began at the O.U. in 2002 and was looked to as a calming figure after the organization was rocked by a scandal involving Baruch Lanner, its former youth division director. Lanner resigned in 2000, in response to a report in the New York Jewish Week alleging that he had abused 4 teenagers over several decades and that O.U. officials had covered up his transgressions. Eventually he was convicted of abusing two teenage girls, and the O.U.'s executive vice president, Rabbi Raphael Butler, resigned, paving the way for Weinreb. Dr. Mandell Ganchrow, who was serving as president of the O.U. at the time that the Lanner scandal erupted, said the new search indicates that Weinreb had finished his task of reforming the organization. "The post-Lanner era is over," said Ganchrow, who served as the O.U.'s president from 1994 to 2000. "The time to heal for the O.U. required the six or seven years that it took. It was done beautifully under a very skillful individual. Now is the time to conquer the next series of problems that faces the Jewish community." "O.U. Leader Being Pushed Out" Nathaniel Popper. Forward. New York, N.Y.: Jan 12, 2007. Vol. 110, Iss. 31636; pg. A10, 1 pgs
      • But for this discussion it really doesn't matter why someone becomes notable, just that they are. This person has been the subject of at least a hundred news articles and is mentioned in probably a few hundred more. As for neutrality, there is nothing in this article that hasn't already been printed in the most respectable Jewish news sources. What matieral in the article is unfair or non-neutral? Also, you are using very emotional language, such as "lynching" and "tar and feather". That's hyperbolic and doesn't lead to calm discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm very calm actually. Tell me, how come you only decided to create this article now? Ever heard of this dude Lanner before? IZAK (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, and I can assure you too, since I am very familiar with who he worked for, that he was nothing more than a glorified cheerleader, he wasn't an "executive" of anything to write home about. Not one of those allegations about NCSY was proven in a court of law despite all the resignations and broo-ha-ha. He went to jail due to what some of his students said from the school where he was a principal, nothing to do with the youth organization. The Jewish Week created such a stink about it, but their allegations never went to court and were never proven. You would make a poor attorney. You seem to be enjoying looking for mud, try looking for better stuff instead. As they say, "get a life"... IZAK (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • IZAK, the actual language from the NYT article on Lanner's conviction is "Two graduates of the school testified at his two-week trial that when they were 16-year-old students there Mr. Lanner touched their breasts, groped them and pressured them with veiled sexual overtures." Your comment's summary uses much weaker language, saying only that "he brushed against their breasts" and calling the victims, now women, "girls". I don't know your actual intent in phrasing it this way but what it comes across as is disingenuously trying to pretend that a serious crime didn't occur when the court says it did. Please adopt a more neutral encyclopedic attitude, in which we present what's known about a story without trying to spin it one way or another. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Lanner affair was very notable. It affected a large number of people, and continues to have repercussions on NCSY and the Modern Orthodox world. IZAK wants to whitewash this whole affair. And, predictably, he has begin to accuse those who disagree with him of all kinds of bad motives. That's how he gets out of having to argue the issues. The issues, however, are obvious: The Lanner affair continues to reverberate years and years later. There is no question about its notability. --Meshulam (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep He was indeed a notable the leader on NCSY and one of the biggest talmidim od JB solovitchick his sexual indecency allegations should not be a reson wikipedia should become a Jewish Censership tool.--יודל (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Buddy, they weren't allegations. They were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But I agree that he is notable... for the sole reason that he took advantage of his position, and that the response to his abuse on the part of his cronies (in the OU, NCSY, etc.) was so pitiful.--Meshulam (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete News story rather than a notable person. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia does not need an article on every minor sex offender. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources for the article are all news from the 2000–2002 period, but evidence of its subject's notability can also be found in the scholarly and popular literatures. Examples: How to Keep Your Children Safe: A Guide for Parents by Yvonne Marie Vissing, UPNE 2007, p.61 has a section about clergy, saying that abuse of this type spans multiple religions, citing Lanner as one of two Jewish examples, and stating that Lanner "abused teenagers in his charge over the course of twenty years". Letters to a Young Journalist, by Samuel G. Freedman, Basic Books, 2006, describes in detail (pp. 38-39) Gary Rosenblatt's efforts in documenting this case; it states the period of time over which the abuse happened as thirty years and writes "This was not an investigation built on the rickety stilts of anonymous sources. Scrupulously, Gary required every victim he quoted to speak by name, on the record." It goes on to describe the Orthodox establishment's attempts to whitewash the problem. Pava, Moses L. (2002), "The Path of Moral Growth", Journal of Business Ethics, 38: 43–54, doi:10.1023/A:1015768912619 in a paper on a topic that is only loosely related nevertheless uses the Lanner case as an example. In a 2004 news story, the OU president in his autobiography maintains his ignorance of the situation at the time. This type of source attests to the significance and ongoing notability of the case, I think — it appears much more than a flash-in-the-pan news item about a minor sex offender. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As David E shows in his customary expert fashion, the notability is attested by religious and secular news sources over many years, academic sources, and popular books. (He was arguably notable otherwise, even without this: I do not thing he could possibly be described as minor clergy. the very people who want to delete the article say that he had "years of being a charismatic youth leader". DGG (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Will Beback. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and well-sourced, sadly. --MPerel 07:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Uncomfortable reading, but his case seems to have sent shockwaves through a large religious organisation. Needs very careful monitoring for WP:BLP issues, but keepable from a notability perspective. JFW | T@lk 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.