Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baal Shem Tov family tree

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. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baal Shem Tov family tree

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

Some people listed in this family tree have WP articles and are probably notable, but the vast majority do not and probably are not . WP:NOT (genealogy) ought to apply. Sitush (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep: This is a dynasty and thus the chain of lineage and relationships between them (often vital for understanding succession disputes) is historically important, even when only some of the members are individually important. While this isn't strict nobility/royalty in the classical sense, as a family of leaders of a sizable religious community, I think the conclusions from this discussion do apply here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Maltese nobility: "While 'Wikipedia is not a genealogy database', genealogy of nobility and royalty is considered encyclopedic." Jztinfinity (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Family tree of founder of Hasidism notable. Chesdovi (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it might help the article if this sort of information was made clear. I'm not yet convinced but surely this stuff should be in the lead? - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relationships of the notable people in the family tree (particularly to Baal Shem Tov) are important. However, the importance of the family as a dynasty needs to be made far clearer in the article - it's certainly not obvious from the article to anyone who knows nothing of Baal Shem Tov except perhaps the name. PWilkinson (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I am not quite impartial to this issue (see history, and my user page), I'd like to add my two cents: I have indeed been trying, of late, to make the page more "useful" in terms of notability, by showing how the Baal Shem Tov's family links to other dynasties. After listing all notable descendants (by this definition) down to the fourth generation, however, it seems horribly "incomplete" and wrong to omit obscure siblings of prominent people (yes, many of them are utterly obscure - Dov Ber of Chudnov, Yisrael the silent and Yisrael the dead are probably some of the most obscure people in Hasidic history).
In my opinion, the best solution would be a compromise: Since most grandchildren were (if marginally) notable, include all grandchildren out of "completeness", and on the text chart, explain dynastic connections.
For example:
"Feiga - mother of Nachman of Breslov" / "Aharon of Titiov (mind you, in his time he was about as notable as Boruch of Medzhybizh, but somehow he eventually went out of style) - ancestor of Skver" / "Sheina Rachel - ancestor of Boston (Hasidic dynasty)", etc. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though I think the nobility analogy is valid, and any notable dynasty's members are by extension notable. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But even if deleted - can I please keep it on my user page? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought notability was not inherited? Well, not on WP at any rate. However, I think if it was made a bit clearer in the lead then a lot of the issues might go away. Oddly, I live in one of the highest density areas for Jewish population in the UK & have never heard of this family/dynasty. Not Jewish myself, but I know my way around a fair bit more than average due to friends/neighbours/school/business people etc over the years. Not to mention invitations to bar and bat mitzvahs as a kid. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for notability being inherited: I don't think it is.
If it was, I would continue Yisrael the Dead's line to the present day, to an obscure author of religious works from Israel who is notable only for his miraculous recovery from paraplegia after falling down an elevator shaft (real example).
All I said was that if a high percentage of a family is notable, other same-generational members should be considered notable, for that is the nature of a dynasty. I think many famous royals had obscure siblings, even siblings that died in infancy, but notability is somewhat contagious.
As for not having heard of this dynasty before - these things don't go well across cultural barriers. For example, I can't name even ten sports teams. The same goes for sports players, movies, actors, etc. Now of course these are notable to most Wikipedians - but Hasidic dynasties are notable for several thousand people at least, all of Hasidism, most of Ultra-Orthodoxy, much of Orthodoxy otherwise, and many others - anyone with Hasidic ancestry, anyone with ancestors living in Hasidic-dominated areas of Eastern Europe, etc.
Haven't you noticed the numerous other detailed Hasidic dynasty pages (see: Category:Hasidic dynasties)? Certainly the family of the founder of Hasidism, with its connections to other dynasties, is just as notable. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a particular case where the dynasty itself is notable, independently of the individual members. Actually it's not all that special--its certainly true we have articles for royal dynasties. For an article like this, it isn't necessary that each individual person listed be notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are adequate notable people in the lineage. and, while WP policy is that notability is not inherited, lets not forget thats OUR rule. for many groups, notability IS inherited, and thus they become appropriate subjects for articles here based on real world commentary on spiritual transmission. baal shem tov to reb nachman is more than enough to satisfy me this is a keeper, esp. since this lineage matters intensely to the people following their teachings, and this group (many orthodox jews) is itself, of course, highly notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a notable topic, a well-sourced stub in fact, and a valuable navigational tool for this complex subject. IZAK (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic, a notable family, and the article can be improved further. --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2011 (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.