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) 2007-02-11 00:16Z

Shlomo Helbrans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The entire basis of this article (actually it's a six line stub) is fraudulent. This person is neither a recognized "rabbi" nor is his "Hasidic group" of Lev tahor (also nominated for deletion) recognized by any normative group within Hasidic Judaism. He is simply a fugitive from the law (see Helbrans mentioned on Google) who runs a small cult. He is WP:NN in the Jewish world and has no standing to merit WP:BIO. IZAK 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 13:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. He appears to have been covered in some detail in the New York Times in the context of his criminal activities, and the article will need to be dramatically improved to make it clear that he is not a representative of mainstream Judaism, but seems to just barely qualify under WP:BIO —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FisherQueen (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Keep. A search in the Westlaw "nyt" database for (rabbi & helbrans) returns 39 hits from 1992 through 2001. That's just one major newspaper. There must be hundreds of non-trivial published sources! - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 14:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then somebody should include them in the article Alf photoman 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep at least as notable as all other splinter fraction cults we have on Wikipedia Alf photoman 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient reliable sources have been identified by Tragic Baboon and others to meet WP:V and the notability component of WP:BIO. That's all that's required. --Shirahadasha 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shira: That is a very shallow and "based on technicalities" type of perspective. So any guy with a beard who looks like a Hasid and gathers around him a few dumb suckers can get to call himself a "Rebbe" (and to the world-at-large all the Hasidim look like "rabbis") and if that "Hasid/rabbi/Rebbe" was reported for crimes they are worthy of articles on Wikipedia on such ridiculously based arguments that his actions were reported over and over again in the media? So then, do we go and look up all the police blotters and the daily crimes section in local papers and if it involves someone who looks Hasidic, he thus ergo is turned into a "notable" and "verifiable" "rabbi" on Wikipedia 'cause Wikipedia has "magical rules" (like magical thinking???) that can make "something out [a] nothing" (somewhat in a self-presumed God-like fashion, no?) I do wish we could all keep perspective in cases like this and not simply revert to spouting "the rules" when some good common sense should come first. Many people from all walks of life have verifiable information from multiple sources available yet they do not merit article/s on Wikipedia, just see the daily toll on WP:AFD and WP:PROD to prove it. Thanks, IZAK 13:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is a notable and verifiable individual, nothing more. The article should definitely reflect that his claim to be a legitimate rabbi, run a legitimate Hassidic sect, etc. are disputed if this can be reliably sourced) as well as other reliably sourced criticism of his activities. If the dispute is extensive, I would certainly agree the intro should be reworked and should not present him as being a rabbi etc. without referring to a dispute. But all this is about the content, not about whether the topic is encyclopedic. --Shirahadasha 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shira: He is only notable because the media latched onto him. There is nothing notable about him per se -- not as a "rabbi" not as a leader of Jews, not as anything, just a scumbag. There are literally thousands of legitimate and notable shtiebel Rebbes with hundreds of congregants each yet there are no articles about them, nor should there be. Simply because someone has been written up in the papers for accused misdeeds does not make that person notable. Not every petty thief and pickpocket deserves articles merely because it's gotten into the papers and is available online in multiple articles and links. Wikipedia should not reflect a false sense of reality by misapplication of the "rules" Shira. Wikipedia should have article about a subject if and when that subject is truly notable in and of their fields. Helbrans is neither a "rebbe" nor is he anything. At most he maybe gets to be on something like List of Jewish-American mobsters, and I don't think that Helbrans makes the cut for that either since he is small fry, and if that's your cup of tea, then it's a sad day for Wikipedia and lovers of knowldege. Finally, Helbrans fails WP:BIO since no-one writes "biographies" about nobodies. IZAK 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I couldn't agree with you more that "He is only notable because the media latched on to him." But unfortunately, that's the definition of notability Wikipedia has. Wikipedia's decision to use news media coverage as a criterion for notability produces just this result: A person or a band or a video game or a brand of chewing gum is notable because the media latches on, regardless of any intrinsic merit or value (or lack thereof) it may have. This may be unfortunate, but Wikipedia has thousands of articles on people and topics that are verifiably notable for what might seem to me to be no good reason. --Shirahadasha 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think WP has the capability of judging among the various Hasidic sects, or the ethical merit of their Rabbis. . DGG 06:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 13:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a notable person. Not a notable rabbi, or group, but person. frummer
  • Hi Frummer: What makes a person notable? That they have their names on the Internet or that they are mentioned in newspapers and court papers? If that is the case, then we can put another billion people on Wikipedia some time very soon. Go for it man! IZAK 12:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK, cool it. This guy and his group is notable by both standards you set out. Remember the article does not and will not lend credence to his beleifs. Quit it. frummer 19:17, 10 February 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.