Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Laitman


 * 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 delete.  Sango  123   03:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Laitman
Utter and shameless self-promotion. Reads like a detailed and seductive "come hither, my dear" brochure. Violates Vanity guidelines; Wikipedia is not a soapbox; and WP:NN. This person is not a noted Kabbalist according to any stream of Judaism, and in fact his website says that he is not even a rabbi!: "The title “Rav” was given to Dr. Laitman by his students in respect for his teachings and his dedication to spreading the wisdom of Kabbalah throughout the world. Rav Laitman was not ordained as a rabbi by a rabbinical school and does not serve as an orthodox rabbi." see bottom of his home page. To call oneself a "rav" (which means Rabbi in Hebrew) and not be formally recognized, let alone ordained, by one's rabbinical peers is a contradiction in terms and could fool only the gullible. Almost all the information about him on Google is generated by his websites (peddling his writings and other self-promotional broadcasts) or by sites that mirror this article. The article about his Bnei Baruch organization is also nominated for deletion for the same reasons. Other articles, such as the one about Rabbi Baruch Ashlag have been loaded to "retroactively" promote Michael Laitman and his organization. Note: The same self-promoting editors have "snuck in" Laitman's quotes into Wikiquote, which should also be nominated for deletion for the above reasons. Thank you, IZAK 05:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for above reasons. IZAK 05:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pity someone actually spent the time writing the article. Look before you leap as they say. Evolver of Borg 06:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Evolver: Don't pity the writer, he/she was in all probability a well-paid publicist who won't lose too much sleep or shed too many tears no matter what happens to this article -- they've already spent a small (?) fortune on hyping this up on the Internet and in the media beyond its paltry worth -- as he/she laughs all the way to the bank... :-} IZAK 06:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per well-written nom. --Coredesat talk 06:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Gilgamesh he 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nuff said.  Ð ’ n talk 07:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel really weird responding to this. The guy is a well-known fraud. And the article as it stands is a total lie. However, this guy has become one of the best-known frauds in the history of Kabbalah. Doesn't Wikipedia want articles on world-class frauds, as long as they aren't biased (which this article currently is, but that could be changed)? Dovi 08:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dovi: He is not within the paramaters of "the history of Kabbalah" which is a legitimate subject. So sure thing, (I never thought of this till you brought it up) write up the article so that it fits nicely into Category:Fraudsters so that it can be redirected there or to some other choice pickings in Category:Fraud such as Category:Quackery or Category:Pyramid and Ponzi schemes or Category:Pseudo-scientific fraud with connections to Category:Internet fraud etc, etc. What a day for a daydream ... and let's hope we can spare Wikipedia readers a fake-Kabbalistic nightmare they don't deserve. IZAK 09:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  12:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.  - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete since it's obviously professionally written. Not opposed to recreation as a "Laitman is the biggest fraud..." type of article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I'm open to a rewrite that demonstrates notability and NPOV, as well as adherence to other WP policies. Whether or not I find this guy's shtick palatable is really beside the point. --Leifern 12:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with Czrussian. --Daniel575 13:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This violates WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V as the sources are worthy of a Attaining the Worlds Beyond tag. Notability cannot be self-assigned (as much as many of us would like) and outside of his own books and pamphlets, he seems to be non-notable. Google searches mainlyl lead to this article, wikiquote, or his own site. Avi 14:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CB. Will leave criticism of religious and Kabbala credentials to others, but the The article makes some totally unsourced claims about scientists and science that are factually, to say the least, suspicious. Sample: "Today, Michael Laitman’s thirty years of research into the science of Kabbalah is finding recognition among leading scientists engaging into deep research of the surrounding world according to classical scientific paradigms." No statements (let alone sources) about who these alleged "leading scientists" are. Rest of the article has similar claims. --Shirahadasha 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Jayjg (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. --Shuki 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. gidonb 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. JFW | T@lk  21:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Starionwolf 04:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we first read Laitman, M. 2003. Attaining the Worlds Beyond. Canada: Laitman Kabbalah Publishers; pp. 446—7 and pp. 442—3, before we make a call on this? No, just Delete as AUTOVANIHOAXCRUFT. ~ trialsanderrors 06:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's almost as good as Vancarlimospacecraft :) -- Avi 07:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or massive re-write: If he is as famous of a fraud as Dovi says, then he is notable enough to get a page, however it should be re-writen to reflect his frauds, otherwise, delete. In any case, the subsection about Laitman in the Baruch Ashlag article and others should be trashed. Also, AUTOVANIHOAXCRUFT is my new favorite wikipedia related word. Koweja 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --רח"ק | Talk 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per IZAK. Pure vanity. 172 | Talk 19:53, 1 July 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.