Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yechi

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. – Pea ceNT 07:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yechi

)

Delete - Is a phrase used by a small subset of a Hasidic group considered notable? I'm not certain, especially as many Lubavitchers themselves disavow connection with this phrase and those who utter it. Avi 22:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per my comment on

Chabad-Lubavitch, I could support splitting the controversy section off into its own article and merging Yechi into it, as I don't think it is notable in and of itself, but it is as a section of a controvery article. The main Lubavitch article is rather long as it is. -- Avi 13:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Avi 22:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Within Chabad, the "subset" of members who proclaim that the Rebbe is Moshiach is not small. In addition, much of the notability the phrase has accrued is due to its notoriety. --DLand ^TALK 22:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, agree with it or not, this is a notable controversy. There are clearly sufficient
WP:N. Gaps in sources can be filled in or unsourced claims deleted, leaving substantial notable and sourced content. --Shirahadasha 23:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, clearly. The controversy regarding adoration of the Rebbe has long since left the Chabad world, to the extent this Yechi business is well-known, even by Sfaradhim in the hinterland of Wisconsin. Tom e r ^talk 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. It's a notable controversy. Kolindigo 00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although this phrase is used by some people, and is notable for those people, and involved circles it is not notable enough for Wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we merge this article to the page about the
movement? It appears to be a notable controversy - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

This chabad article is long enough as it is... Way past the official limits as to how long an article should be before it is broken into pieces. Therefore, I would strongly oppose any merge. Perhaps a new article about the controversies in chabad, would be good, and this could include the yechi article along with the controversy section in the chabad article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recommendation I could support. Tom e r ^talk 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Article size for relevant policy. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep , editing the article size is a separate matter. Whatever one may think about them, the group involved is large, active, & very good at getting media attention. And the substance of the issue discussed is intrinsically of some importance. DGG 06:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's the key slogan ("battle-cry"?) of the Messianist wing (probably the majority) of
Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic Judaism today. They sing this at every event, morning, noon and night, like a mantra. IZAK 08:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep For the above reasons, and because it is the most important issue (arguably the entire mission) of one of the most influential groups of Jews in the world. --Meshulam 05:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Per nom, utter nonsense. frummer 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters above. Yamaguchi先生 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Non notable phrase. —King Ivan 06:12, 25 January 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.