Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Gurary

Add links
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 no consensus - kept (D:14, K:12) comment: After trimming the article during the discussion to verifiable text, all objections are polarized w.r.t. notable/nonnotable. "No reliable sources" argument is moot, since the court case is clearly a public information, hence reliable and verifiable. Lacking better arguments in favor of deletion, the article stays. `'mikka (t) 04:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Gurary[edit]

This article was prodded by me on August 6th, and deleted after five days. Today a couple of editors realized it was missing and sent a couple of messages to the deleting administrator. I have asked him to undelete this article per WP:PROD, which allows post-factum challenges.

This person is a son of a failed candidate for the leadership of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, Shemaryahu Gurary, and nephew by marriage of the 7th Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson. And he stole some books from his uncle once. That is it. A comparison has been made between Barry here and Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia. That is disingenuous. Tsarevich Alexei was a certain heir to the throne of a nation of 150 million people. Barry Gurary was a not-so-certain heir to the religious leadership over a Hasidic movement of 50,000(?). There is no comparison whatsoever. Barry Gurary is profoundly NN. There aren't multiple non-trivial works about him, and some sources in the article fail WP:RS. Recommending Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because it was I who objected to the tactics of CrazyRussian in the first place, and now pushed to have this article undeleted, only to have it pounced upon by User:CrazyRussian again, the following refutation of his above points is required here:

  1. Barry Gurary was the only remaing male relative of the Schneersohn-Gurary-Shneerson family in his generation (note, that the 6th rebbe's name was spelled with an "h" in it, and the 7th rebbe was his cousin and that is why his name was spelled differently, without the "h"). This is very significant. Wikipedia has an article about Alois Hitler, Jr., the half-brother of Hitler. Why? The only reason which indeed makes it notable is that he was Hitler's half-brother. Period. There are many other cases like this, such as Prince Harry of Wales (what has he done that makes him notable? and it's unlikely that he will ever be king of anything!), whereby family relationships alone warrant an article.
  2. Barry Gurary didn't just "steal some books from his uncle" -- because who was to say that his uncle had a right to them in the first place. In any case the court ruled that the books belonged to the Chabad movement and not "to the uncle."
  3. It is NOT "disengenious" to compare Barry Gurary to the Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia because, as I stated, the Tsrevitch was a young kid who never got to be Czar (and what did the Tsarevich ever do in his short life that made him "notable"?) Indeed there is an entire category called Category:Heirs apparent who never acceded and Barry Gurary could fit into such a category perfectly if there were a Hasidic equivalent! When Barry was 14 (the age at which the Tsarevitch was executed by the Bolsheviks) he was indeed viewed as the ONLY heir to the Chabad-Lubavitch dynasty by his grandfather, the 6th rebbe.
  4. When CrazyRussian compares Jewish statistics with Russian or world statistics he crosses all lines of logic because we are talking about Jews and Judaism and since there are only about 13 million Jews in the world, they will always be outnumbered compared to numbers in the world's general population (currently at over 6 BILLION).
  5. To claim that there are not enough works about Barry Gurary in the world is also a poor argument (how many books are there about Alois Hitler Jr?) because there are many articles relating to Judaism, and to Hasidic Judaism in particular about which there are few if any sources because the topics, while they may be of importance, remain signficant within the history of a group or as part of a sub-culture which may seem esoteric to outsiders.
  6. At the very least, the article is far better than most of the hundreds of stubs relating to Jews and Judaism.
  7. Finally, as CrazyRussian admits [1], he hadn't even heard of Barry Gurary before he came across the article, and he was also the one who submitted it for deletion [2] so the question is: How can anyone judge, let alone submit for "deletion," an article they they openly admit they know nothing about? Therefore what is the rush to have it deleted again so quickly unless there may be other POV objectives that I cannot fathom at this time. IZAK 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I won't be responding to this diatribe, other than to state that I am not a member of Chabad, do not care about Chabad, and don't have any tactics. As you, IZAK, well know, I do a lot of work with rabbinical bios. Whenever I see one not worth keeping IMO, I propose it for deletion. That - is - all. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Crazy: Why call what is a clear logical categorical rebuttal a "diatribe" ? In any case, the issue of Barry Gurary goes way beyond the parameters of a "rabbi's bio", it touches upon a far deeper matter pertaining to how and why and at what point potential heirs to any dynasty or powerful group are marginalized and deligitimatized and sent into obscurity, if not literally executed at the end of it all. You know, as an example, if one were to adopt a Stalinist frame of mind, then Trotsky's bio is "not worth keeping" beyond tarring him as a cheap "villain," and yes I know, Barry Gurary was no Trotsky, but think of it in terms of the Hasidim who swear by family successions only when it comes to their rebbes' iron-clad rulership over them, Barry Gurary presents as big a conundrum to Lubavitch as much as the issue of Trotsky's mere existence represented to Stalinists. Think about it. And that is NOT all! IZAK 04:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources. Jon513 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Huon 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain due to Chabad messianism and lack of heirs after 7th Rebbe death in the movement, article on the person who could prevent it should be discussed.Narshavs 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chabad messianism has absolutely no relevance to his notability or verifiability. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest you read several books on sociological understanding of what is going on in Khabad. All great schism between Khabad and Lithuanian Judaism is for Chabad messianism of last generation, when 50 years before rebbe's death it was clear that rebbe whould be considered alive and messiah, but would Barry be inside Chabad it could not happen.Narshavs 19:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Irrelevant. We need multiple - nontrivial - reliable - sources. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Crazy: Perhaps you are not that well-acquainted with Wikipedia yet where articles may start as stubs and then progress over time, sometimes years, into longer articles. This article is well beyond stub status, it has a number of links that verify a lot of its content. To ask for Harvard research-level quality as an article progresses is not always realistic because as you may be aware, articles need time, sometimes years, to evolve and mutate into better articles. Featured articles are not born overnight. And when an article touches upon potentially critical subject-matter, as this one does, you need to respect those editors who feel it has enough intrinsic value to be saved. IZAK 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Jayjg (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remain - I discovered the voting while proofing the hebrew article on the famous Chabad Library. This guy has a major part in it's history. The trials conclusion is nowadays celebrated by Chabad followers worldwide. This guy ("Bad guy"?) warrants an article. DGtal 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jon --Shaul avrom 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per my responses above and because the saga, or tragedy, of Barry Gurary is an important chapter in the history of the latest stages of Chabad. The very enmity that mainstrean Chabad has towords him would be reason enough to warrant an article about him. The article is free of any original research. IZAK 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This is a perfect example of what constitutes unencyclopedic content. He is notable only by association and the argument that Chabad Messianism makes it notable is totally fallacious. -- Chabuk 03:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chabuk: Obviously, Lubavitchers are going to have a hard time with any article about Barry Gurary for obvious reasons. IZAK 03:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless non-trivial and reliable sources can be found, but even then, I'd probably dispute notability per nom. james(talk) 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems to meet (barely) the threshhold for notability. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the threshold for reliable verifiability? - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crazy: What is not verfiable in this article? It in fact adds to common wisdom, and no-one denies any of the raw facts in it. It's a lot better than the thousands of stubs in its present form. IZAK 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: borderline notable. Not sure we need an article on the individual, though the book thing seems worth a mention, possibly in some other article. Would be very open to a merge suggestion. Verifiability doesn't seem to be an issue at all: if some particular fact has a verifiability issue, take it up through normal channels, not an AFD: the broad outline is completely verifiable. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; only notability though a long and tenuous chain of association; article completely unencylopedic. --MCB 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Chabad saga is obscure to most people, and difficult to figure out; but it's still notable in itself, and to the Chassidic enterprise as a whole. I am concerned about the difficulty of sources, though. --Leifern 10:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - of interest to those researching the history of Chabad. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When you remove all the unsourced stuff there is little left; he is not personally of much relevance. If the library incident is encyclopedic (which I doubt) an article could be created under the name of Chabad library controversy using only [[WP:RS|reliable sources. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete — Barry Gurary's role in Chabad history was trivial and of no interest to the general public. The incident of the books' "theft" could be summarized in an article about Chabad, and so could Barry's lineage. Nobody except a few historians dedicated to the subject will either remember or care about this person or his activities in future generations. -- Nahum 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes notability threshold because of the library court case. Article should be rewritten to emphasize the court case and minimize unimportant things like his "letters to the editor" --Eliyak T·C 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just not notable enough. Comparing the historical significance of the Schneersohn-Gurary-Shneerson family to the historical significant of Adolf Hitler is, well, something of a reach. Legis 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I hate deleting articles about Jews from Wikipedia (an admitted bias), I have taken the stance before that relation to notable people does not automatically make a person notable. To be honest, I've never even heard of this guy before. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Khabad tries to let the people forget about leadership struggle for Khabad movement in 1950, and to represent R.Menakhem Mendel Schneerson as the sole candidate to the post, while there was a struggke underground which not ended up even 30 years later. As It is said, the winner side writes history. I never heard about Barry before inquirung in Rebbes genealogical table about succession line after R.Joseph Isaac death, it is clear that people outside Khabad wouldn't know the story. According to my opinion people should see different perspectives on Rebbe's messianism and immortality. Of course I recognize Rebbe's unique personality and contribution to modern Judaism.Narshavs 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reading the delete justifications, it just seems that this guy is definitely 'notable', but the 'deletes' don't think he is notable to them. Definitely not trivial. --Shuki 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But He comes up often enough and he was involved in notable events. We should retrive the original article and place it as a section on his father's page.--Jayrav 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Compared with the garage bands, webcomics, dorm rooms, and other stuff that regularly comes up for deletion, notability here is no problem. No-one's aerioualy challenging the existence of enough reliable sources etc. I disagree with claims that notability has to be based on what people do. As no less an authority on notability than Sherlock Holmes pointed out, what the dog didn't do in the night is just as notable as what it did do. The consequences of bowing out can be just as historically important, and notable, as bow-wowing in. As with dogs, so with would-be heirs to the Lubavitcher dynasty. Keep. --Shirahadasha 03:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. While doing research, I noticed that Barry's case is described in several Wikipedia artices ans a notable event, and the versions differ. This article must stay for purely wikipedia's policy no forking. We must have a consistent story, don't we? Therefore it must be in a single place, referred from everywhere. `'mikka (t) 19:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is he barely notable (I can't find almost any of the details by google searching even on the more scandal mongering anti-chabad sites) but the complete lack of sources runs afoul of WP:BLP. Claiming he went in clandestinely to steal books with no source at all? That's such a BLP issue it isn't funny. JoshuaZ 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joshua: If Barry Gurary is "not notable" then why does the entire Lubavitch movement have a huge day of celebration ("Didan Notzach") trumpeting a secular court's ruling in their favor against Barry Gurary? As a number of people here have already pointed out, this alone deserves time for expansion and is certainly very notable in the context of the history of latter-day Chabad. IZAK 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have a citation for this? I know a number of Lubvatichers and I've never heard this day. I'll ask around to see if they actually do this. JoshuaZ 21:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Joshua: The Lubavitchers are experts at hiding their own true beliefs! Take a look at what a Google search for Didan Notzach shows... Lot's of Lubavitch gloating and exuberance about this day - and without Barry Gurary's role as "the designated fall guy" none of it would make any sense. IZAK 03:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Er, most of those hits aren't relevant, and although I strongly dislike the Lubavitch movement I'd hardly saus that they "are experts at hiding their own true beliefs." JoshuaZ 03:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mikkalai, seems to meet the threshold for notability and verifiability. Silensor 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above. Shlomke 13:28, 18 September 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barry_Gurary&oldid=1137598627"