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 delete. Basically this is a "criticism of X" article where X is a BLP. Courcelles 00:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies relating to Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP by giving undue weight to negative media treatment of this rabbi. Additionally, the excessive quotation which forms the basis for most of its content is inconsistent with the brevity requirements of Wikipedia:Non-free content. There seems to be a general consensus that content forking of BLPs must be done neutrally: we now have Public image of Barack Obama and Public image of George W. Bush, not controversy articles. If it is believed that this article may form some basis for the neutral treatment of Ginsburgh's public image, then I suggest removal of all non-free text, and incubation; if this is unlikely, outright deletion is the most prudent course of action. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge material back into Yitzchak Ginsburgh. There was insufficient reason to move the controversial material to a separate article. The simplest approach would be to revert Yitzchak Ginsburgh back to its state before the forking, and work on any problems starting at that point. Btw, I don't think "removal of all non-free text" is in conformity with Wikipedia policy. Zero^talk 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge Neither this rabbi nor the controversies themselves are/were influential and publicized enough to have a separate article about them. Which is to sy that basically I agree with the claims of undue weight and the considerations that pertain to negative information about a living person, who, if I may add, is highly respected in religious circles. For these same reasons I think it unadvisable to merge the information here into the main article where, if memory serves me, it was perviously removed as being too extensive. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ginsburgh is a leading personality in the Israeli religious right wing and is mentioned by most good sources on that subject. The controversy over his extreme views has been covered by many reliable sources and should be covered by Wikipedia. Obviously that has to be done in conformity with WP:BLP, but suppressing it is not ok. Zero^talk 02:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record. I off course agree that it should not be surpressed. But from there to having an whole article about it, or even a more than short section, is a big step. He can't compare with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who, as you see, also doesn't have a separate article about his many controversial actions and rulings... Debresser (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge these separate articles are rarely a good idea. It should not have split in the first place. As for extent and balance, probably what he has said should be quoted, not just what other people have said are his views. And the somewhat hagiographic tone of the main article does not help achieve NPOV . DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge 'Controversy' is in the eyes of the beholder, and certainly all this is UNDUE even on the main article, and exagerated. --Shuki (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main Yitzchak Ginsburgh article. This is just a duplicate article that violates WP:CONTENTFORKING. IZAK (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2010 (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.