Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burshtin (Hasidic dynasty)


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Burshtin (Hasidic dynasty)
Originally tagged as prod due to my concerns and that of another editor on talk page, but prod tag removed by creator of article. Zero Google hits for "Burshtin dynasty" as a phrase, and I suspect that this is a vanity article. Delete CLW 16:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I can verify that this group exists for the last 30 years in Borough Park, Brooklyn. I am a personal follower of this group and you can go see for yourself by visiting the location at 12th Avenue and 56th Street in Brooklyn, NY. I can not understand your argument that there is no match on Goggle. The way I understand, Wikipedia is exactly for this purpose to get new information that was not available in any other source. User: Sunny123 March 30, 2006
 * Comment Actually, Wikipedia is specifically not for "new information." See No original research, which is the policy for such. &mdash;LrdChaos 20:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burshtin_%28Hasidic_dynasty%29"

Asking for verification makes sense. See my response above. However, I can not understand how you can even think of calling this a "Vanity" article. User: Sunny123 March 30, 2006
 * comment They have been on the List of Hasidic dynasties since it's inception in Feb 2005. --Bachrach44 18:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I accept your comment about new information. So let me put it to you this way. The Burshtiner Rebbe is not new in any way. He is a reputable figure for over thirty years and Google has him referenced under "Eichenstein" which is his family name. USER: Sunny123 March 30,2006


 * Keep - But fix it so its not lying anymore, and do something with the pictures, its a mess on my res. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but, really, could the article be anymore hagiographic? Fishhead64 07:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Trim & keep -- Simon Cursitor 07:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Accepted your suggestion of Trim & Keep - USER: Sunny123 March 31, 2006

Does anybody know the rules? USER: Sunny123 March 31, 2006
 * How long do I have to wait before I can remove the "This article is being considered for deletion"?  -
 * Delete due to lack of verifiability. An administrator will remove the deletion notice on April 4th. You must not. Stifle 00:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 07:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

and I will try my best to give you that info. Thanks. USER: Sunny123 April 2, 2006
 * Please tell me what you need for verifiability.
 * Please use ~ to sign your posts. For verifiability, you need some reliable sources. Stifle 13:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a site that I am familiar with and I added some information to. For some reason this was flagged for deletion. I do not understand this. I replied to all the concerns that were stated. I am willing to supply additional information and I can use some help in clearly identifying what info should be supplied. Please DO NOT Delete. Thanks, USER: Sunny123 April 3, 2006
 * Please DO NOT delete.

Deleted some flowery statements and kept only factual statements. Hope this is acceptable to all. Sunny123 April 4, 2006
 * '''Made corrections:


 * Keep but article should be sourced and cleaned / fixed up (specialy the pictures). Shlomke 21:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And if sources aren't forthcoming, would you vote to delete? Would you consider delete unless cleaned up? Stifle 13:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

'''Made more corrections by major deletions: The deletion alert is up more than one week and nobody came forth to deny any of the claims made in this article. The original article is comments that are facts and accepted by a large segment of the Boor Park community. However, I tried to keep to the Wikipedia standards and therefore made major deletions to this article. At this point I believe I can not cut it down anymore and I hope this is acceptable to all. Sunny123 April 6, 2006
 * Keep Everything in the article is verifyable. Just go to Boro Park. At 5822 11TH AVE, BROOKLYN, NY 11219 you can find Yeshiva Ohr Torah d'Burshtin (here is a website detaining education expenditures in New York that has it listed: ). Now, someone has to find out a little more about the Burshtiner Rebbe. (From what I've heard, he's the nicest man in Boro Park. But unfortunately, that's all that I've heard). But please don't delete this merely for a lack of information.  That's how these things start. Soon, iy''h, the article will grow. --Meshulam 22:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Not everyone can "go to Boro Park". Stifle 13:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The statement was more tongue-in-cheek. But regardless, I provided a link to New York documents that "verify" the existence of a Burshtin Dynasty. In fairness though, it seems sort of silly. If it happened to be the case that no book was written about the Statue of Liberty, it would nonetheless be obvious and verifiable that it exists. Just ask anyone who drives from NY to NJ periodically. --Meshulam 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not up to Wikipedians to "deny any of the claims". The onus is on you to verify them. Stifle 12:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

'''AMAZING AND UNBELIEVABLE... how after all my deletions and improvements there are 2 users (CLW and Stifle) that are determined to nitpick and criticize this site. Sunny123 April 6, 2006
 * Comment - I belive that my "nitpicking" referred to above is my reversion of this edit and this edit; in both cases, [User:Sunny123] removed requests for citations, changed headings within articles to non-standard forms (e.g. with non-standard capitalisation and with colons) and reinserted deleted unverifiable statements, both times without using any edit summary. CLW 08:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

'''NEED HELP: At this point I need help from Wikipedia users that have Admin authority to evaluate my position. I improved this site to the best of my ability and I do not think that it is fair to put Citation after every word in this article. I analyzed other Wikipedia articles and came to the conclusion that if you really want to nitpick, it can be done to almost every Wikipedia article. Sunny123 April 6, 2006


 * Agreed. The new article is a little ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshulam (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as unsourced (WP:RS), no indication of notability, also utterly confusing (is this a "dynasty", a "sect" or an individual? The lead talks about all three). Sandstein 08:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.