Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Points of interest related to Judaism on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions -

Main article: Judaism

1 List of deletion discussions
2 Templates
3 Categories

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Judaism. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
removing closed AFDs.
removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Judaism}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Judaism}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.

[edit] List of deletion discussions

[edit] Demographic warfare

The term is a neologism originated in somebody's thesis, which has not been accepted by academia. Essentially, the article takes facts (population figures and trends) and adds pop-sociological theories. Information is best treated elsewhere, and there's nothing here worth merging. Delete. - crz crztalk 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SOAP. Article seems to be a soapbox for white supremacist propaganda regarding a race war in the United States together with completely unsourced and unsubstantiated claims of similar phenomena in other parts of the world, veiled in a thin academic guise. --Shirahadasha 16:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep if article can be expanded with more sources. It seems the term does have some usage outside of the dissertation: Google Book Search yields hits [1] for the exact term in a bunch of history/political books, while there are also 1,380 web Google hits for the term outside of Wikipedia [2]. --Howrealisreal 01:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep because it seems a reasonable version of Revenge of the cradle somewhat related to population explosion and the converse of Demographic transition (which may also "breed" warfare). Fits in with lots of other academic jargon that abounds. No big deal. IZAK 10:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Shirahadasha. WP:SOAP. Collecting a series of quotes and snippets together doesn't produce an encyclopedic topic. Absent very thorough sourcing the suspicion of WP:OR is very strong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MetsFan76 00:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. OR; 20 or so citations of a 1970 book stating something fairly obvious isnt enough for a term to be declared encyclopaedic. Hornplease 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep if additional sources can be found that meet WP:RS per Howrealisreal. Dragomiloff 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, is baloney. FrummerThanThou 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignatz Lichtenstein

A prior AfD was overturned at deletion review due to the emergence of new sources (please review DRV discussion for a listing of the sources), so it is now back here for reconsideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Sources that have been provided are perfectly in line with WP:V. No reason to delete. metaspheres 09:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete because this is a silly reincarnation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Lichtensteinx2. What a waste of time that we have to go through this Wikipedia:Hoax. IZAK 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Izak, please note that among the many reliable sources now discovered is the 1929 Hungarian Jewish Encyclopedia, and as such, it is (I hope) no longer possible for you to dismiss all the reliable sources as an elaborate conspiracy of Christian prosletysers. -- Kendrick7^talk 10:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Kendrick7: Hungarian goulash is probably more authentic. People are missing the point entirely. There was and is absolutely nothing notable about Ignatz/Isaac either as a Jew or as a Christian. Note: Real rabbis with more achievements get deleted on Wikipedia simply because they are not notable, even if they have given speeches that were published. That Ignatz/Isaac allegedly wrote a few pamphlets and is quoted in missionary works and what the Messianic Jews are doing with him is an outright hoax because there is neither any meaning nor any impact of the tale about this totally insignificant "rabbi" from a Hungarian village having done what he allegedly did. Sure, those out to missionize the Jews may have thought they "struck gold" by grasping at this pathetic straw just as today's mssionaries think they have uncovered some great "hero" here, worthy of a Wikipedia piece, when all they are holding onto is fools gold - a true hoax. IZAK 08:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Please provide a link to the discussion of the new sources. --Dweller 12:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) -- Ah. Found it. Strong Keep. --Dweller 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) vote strengthened Dweller 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per discussion at Deletion review Catchpole 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per discussion at Deletion review - crz crztalk 12:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per discussion at Deletion review. Jamie Guinn 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Discussion at deletion review. However, I'd like to make it very clear that only the sources agreed to be reliable based on that discussion should be used in the article. JoshuaZ 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete the guy was nuts, not a WP:rule but just my 2c, and per IZAK. FrummerThanThou 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment - if we deleted bios simply because the people they deal with were nuts, we'd have a lot fewer articles here. His views may have been distasteful to many, and he may have been a bit loopy, but not nearly as distasteful or loopy as others I could mention who have large articles (I won't mention some of them for fear of invoking Godwin's Law...) Grutness...wha? 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Brandt?? **GASP!** - crz crztalk 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable person who created a controversial Judaic cult Alf photoman 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Doesn't matter that he was nuts, FrummerThanThou, so was David Koresh. MetsFan76 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Even if he's a hoax, he's a notable hoax, per Little Mikey. Further, I think it's difficult to argue Lichtenstein's non notable if he's cited as a notable founding father by today's Messianic Jews. Wikipedia comfortably accommodates many fictional characters of note... not to mention all the Biblical characters than non believers also consider to be fictional. The hoax issue is therefore a non starter. Notability is the key and if he's cited in key documentation used today by Messianic Jews I'd argue he's clearly notable. Sorry IZAK. I'm gritting my teeth and strengthening my keep vote above. --Dweller 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per DRV and prior AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examination of Holocaust denial

Sorry, but I can only see this as a soapbox. Holocaust denial is a vile thing, but we are not here to rebut it, only to report that it exists and is rejected by anybody with an ethical bone in their body. Guy (Help!) 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete and Merge any useful info into Holocaust Denial. TSO1D 00:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Holocaust denial covers the topic perfectly well. An article on Examination of Holocaust denial can serve no purpose but as a focus for OR and POV pushing.-WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 00:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I know that I am going to lose this one, but I really feel that any article which provides sensible arguments against Holocaust denial, as this one does, should be retained. As one who has stood on the ground at Auschwitz-Birkenau, I may be biased; but if so, it is a bias I am proud of.--Anthony.bradbury 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This article was first expanded from the original Holocaust Denial article because the article itself was focusing too much on the arguments against denial, and not on the aspect of holocaust denial itself (its history, repercussions, etc.). It has existed on Wikipedia for over two years, and since that time its POV has not seriously challenged until now, with this AfD. As the edit history of the article itself shows, nearly all of the disputes involving the articles POV have been from anonymous (or short-lived) users who popped up to declare the article biased -- because it supposedly didn't present detailed equal time "questioning the Holocaust." The issue here is that this article is inherently biased against Holocaust deniers -- which is as it should be. Why? Not because of POV or my own or anyone's despising of Holocaust deniers (deserved or not); rather, because Holocaust denial is itself a hate-spawned, primarily anti-Semitic belief based on wild conspiracy theories. This is not a statement of bias, but rather a statement of fact -- one that has been proven again and again over the years. It is NPOV to state this, because it is a proven fact, backed up by considerable arguments against denial that vastly outweigh the feeble arguments presented by deniers. Consequently, I believe the article is NPOV, because debunking of Holocaust denial as a lunatic fringe belief is a historical fact. --Modemac 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the article history as illuminated by Modemac. While I can see how this article could be mischaracterized as a soapbox, its inclusion is essential in order to maintain neutral coverage. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, though possibly re-title - Criticism of Holocaust Denial (as suggested elsewhere) sounds good to me. The content definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC) vote edited Argyriou (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is a useful and interesting article and looks well on its way to being well referenced. The holocaust denial article focuses on the movement, personalities involved and the history, this article is about the claims made by the movement and the evidence rebutting them. Seems a significant enough movement that one article isn't enough to cover it. NPOV is good but does not mean giving equal time to fringe theories while leaving them unrebutted. Dragomiloff 02:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Holocaust denial. Though remnants of the holocaust are touching, Wikipedia is not a place to posit evidence for and against this subject. Remember to stay neutral. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename, rewrite to something else, because as it stands "Examination of" makes it original research and essay. Criticisms of Holocaust denial or something like that, perhaps? It is also inherently POV, which must be changed to be an encyclopedia article. It needs to be rewritten such that it includes the "evidence" of the deniers, or at least links to it on the Holocaust denial page, rather than a single statement followed by paragraphs refuting it. Koweja 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Too large to merge with Holocaust Denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Rename - crz crztalk 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, extensively edit, and rename to 'Criticisms of Holocast denial' or similar -Toptomcat 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename - examination insinuates OR. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 04:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This article is Original Research and POV. The nature of this article wishes to argue something, and is mostly argument with some sparse quotes. According to WP:OR, "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" is Original Research and is not encyclopedic, thus must be removed. So must POV. Even if there is POV on other related cites, that doesnt justify creating more POV to balance it out. Rather, introduce the relevant information in the relevant objective article and change the prose so that it reflects a neutral view point that wishes to present all the facts. Xlegiofalco 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep with indifference to renaming. Although a decision for or against merging here wouldn't be binding, I'll opine that merging doesn't seem viable due to the length of the two articles. I read the nomination as being that the article is too detailed for an encyclopedia. Maybe... However, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which gives us the opportunity to have more depth of coverage on important topics, not just more topics of marginal importance. This much content is not too much in my opinion. (And I note that to the best of my knowledge we don't have any community standards for what constitutes "too much information" on a topic of agreed importance.) I also don't see the original research concern as being real; my read of the article is that the refutations are generally cited to a prior source that used them the same way, which makes the analysis not original. Could more be quoted and cited - sure, but the article wouldn't need to change significantly. GRBerry 06:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. This article is better written than 90% of the articles on Wikipedia, and contains vast amounts of valuable information. While it doesn't make use of proper Wikipedia inline citations, that is easily remedied. I noticed that it uses Lipstadt's book on Holocaust denial as a reference, a book that I happen to own. If the consensus is to keep, I will gladly spend a few days properly wikifying the article. As to the claims above of WP:OR, I must respectfully disagree. I know a lot about this subject, and everything I read in this article I have also heard or read elsewhere. In closing, I would like to add that Holocaust denial is a longstanding concern of mine. I think it is vitally important for this project to provide articles that debunk this movement. Jeffpw 08:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Modemac. metaspheres 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Too large to merge. Too good to delete. Rename to Criticisms of....Hornplease 10:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename. Fascinating and well-written. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
delete Tuohirulla puhu 14:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a vote, it is a discussion. Care to offer a reason for your opinion? GRBerry 14:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
MERGE and DELETE - Very well written and researched. Fascinating! However, the article does have quite a bit of overlap with the Holocaust denial article and covers most of the same issues. As the Holocaust denial article is most likely the more commonly read of the two it would be a shame for readers to miss the material contained in this one. Therefore I recommend merging it with the Holocaust denial article and then deleting it.KarlXII 15:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As per various above comments, keep and retitle. I like Criticisms of Holocaust denial, personally. Natalie 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Merge Do NOT redirect! FirefoxMan 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The article appears to be appropriately written. Possibly merge based on some of the comments above. I note in particular Jeffpw's offer to improve the article if it is maintained. Orderinchaos78 17:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename. The article is sound, although it is in desperate need of inline references to clearly demonstrate that it is not OR, e.g. that it is a summation of arguments made in other contexts to refute the claims of Holocaust deniers. To that end, it should also be renamed. Examination of Holocause denial suggests that this is an article that will examine and refute certain claims; it would be more neutral to call it Criticisms or Refutations instead. - Eron ^Talk 17:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Rename. In light of recent comments I am changing my opinion to one of keep and supporting a rename to Criticisms of Holocaust denial. But it should be stressed that the article needs considerable work to reference the content and avoid POV and OR criticism. Contrary to what has been said above, Wikipedia should not set out to rebut notable theories, however objectionable- that sets editors up as critics, something to be avoided. However I accept criticisms of Holocaust denial are widespread and well founded and do deserve to be covered neutrally by Wikipedia. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 17:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As a somewhat regular contributor to the article in question (and having already voted above), I'll state that I fully accept the statements that the article does need more revision to be truly NPOV, and I will not object to or impede any genuine efforts to make it more NPOV. --Modemac 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and rename as "Criticisms of...." Too much useful content to merge. Doc Tropics 18:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP - if you get rid of this article, you'll have to get rid of Single bullet theory, and basically every other article that tries to explain or examine something that happened in history. And what is and is not encyclopedic is always up for debate because Wikipedia is not paper. Just because the word 'encyclopedia' was defined over a century ago does not mean the definition must stick today. The pursuit of knowldege and clarity is our main goal. This article certainly helps in the clarity department.Mk623SC20K 18:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Criticism of holocaust denial or edit Holocaust denial down to a reasonable length and incorporate arguments for and against, or edit down further and incorporate in Holocaust, which is where it belongs. Strong feelings have created verbose sprawling and not very encyclopedic articles. The reference style is poor; convert to inline references linked to a reference section. Edison 19:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Edison, the Holocaust article is already 166 KB, and Holocaust denial is 67 KB. To merge the three together would be an impossible task, without sacrificing important content. It has already been agreed that the referencing needs work; I have said earlier I am happy to undertake the referencing as a project if this article is kept. It seems logical and important to me that this article remains distinct from the denial article, since they, though related, are on decidedly different facets of the subject. To make an analogy, the articles on Halloween, Halloween 2 and Halloween 3 are all featured articles, yet some people could easily say to save space they should be merged into one article about the series. This subject is at least as deserving of bandwidth as a series of articles about teen slasher flicks.

Keep and rename to Criticism of Holocaust denial or similar to make the focus of the article clearer. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moshe Aryeh Friedman

Keep: Multiple, non-trivial, independent references = notable as per WP:N. Geoffrey Pruitt 18:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly WP:Vanity and WP:NN IZAK 12:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete for above reasons. IZAK 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - not vanity but fails WP:BIO anyway. MER-C 12:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- And WP:NOT. IZAK 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How so? MER-C 13:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For example: Wikipedia is not a soapbox - this guy and the folks who posted this are trying to do a little PR for this totally unkown non-entity. IZAK 13:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you be sure? Remember WP:AGF. MER-C 13:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete not sufficiently notable, fails WP:BIO. TSO1D 13:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Rabbi Friedman is a crackpot lunatic whose participation in the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust only serves to aid and abet Anti-Semites who truly believe that The Holocaust never occurred. Friedman has received extensive press coverage over the years from publications worldwide, especially given that newspapers lap up the antics of an "Ultra-Orthodox" Rabbi who seems to team up with the most virulent racists he can find. His participation in the recent Iranian hatefest has been picked up by over 1,200 news reports. As such, claims of non-notability are extremely hard to justify, despite the individual's odious actions. Alansohn 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's not the first time he is in the news. I hear his name quite often. Personally I understand and am neutral regarding his actions. There is something to be said for it, and something to be said against it. If he decides to go, I won't be the one to stop him. --169.132.18.248 14:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The 'The Orthodox Anti-Zionist Society ' is an international organzition. Moshe Friedman is the head of that organization in Austria and he was invited to the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. He is definatly notable. Jidan 14:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - How is this WP:Vanity? He clearly plays a significant role in controversial organization and the article is far from self-promoting. Geoff NoNick 14:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Definitely notable (as per above.)
It is a borderline case for WP:Vanity. However, its main problem is a fishy adherence to WP:NPOV; but that can, and should be fixed by us, the editors. The article isn't written very well, and I may rewrite it once this debate is over (unless, of course, someone more knowledgable wants to do so.)
- Dave314159 15:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Disgusting but meets WP:BIO - crz crztalk 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 15:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I am an ultra-Orthodox Jew and an anti-Zionist. That is an extremely small community in itself, maybe numbering into hundreds of thousands of people. I haven't heard of this guy before. This man is an individual with no influence and no following. There may be 50 people at most who acknowledge his little organization. 75.3.230.167 15:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be easier to believe this statement if this weren't the user's first and only edit.--Dmz5 17:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Notability is not subjective (unfortunately). --Howrealisreal 15:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Doesn't look like a vanity page, and probably notable enough. Better to improve this than to delete it. JLeander 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: This is a current event, with a person whose name has been cited numerous times relating to this event. There is a picture of him shaking hands with the president of Iran (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.holocaust.conference.reut/story.rabbi.ap.jpg) in the related article on CNN.com today (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/12/iran.holocaust.conference.reut/index.html) --Gdwessel 15:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Wikipedia records notable individuals though does not necessarily endorses their views. ekantiK ^talk 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Multiple, non-trivial, independent references = notable as per WP:N. ccscott 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Alansohn. His lunacy is notable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep also per Alansohn. He may not be that notable to the majority (i didn't even know there was such a thing as a Jewish Holocaust denier), but he's notable enough. Mk623SC20K 18:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep very notable rabbi. KazakhPol 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I was disappointed just a few days ago when I tried to find information regarding this nut after I saw a picture of him, in full rabbi regalia, shaking hands with a smiling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I looked to Wikipedia as always and could not find him. I was happy to see this rectified when I searched for him today! He may not be well known, but he is the first name that anyone has ever put to someone who is altogether Jewish, a holocaust denier, and a supporter of Hamas in the struggle against the state of Israel. That alone makes this rather strange dude notable. Moreover, the page is neutral in tone and factual in content -- this is not vanity. 68.218.8.145 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep How is this vanity? Regardless of his views, he is still notable. I think sometimes too much personal opinion affects the voting. MetsFan76 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Halakha

Strong delete, Conservative Judaism and Jews rely on traditional Halacha when they seek a ruling, all Halacha books by and for conservaive Jews cite traditional Halacha sources. FrummerThanThou 19:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Clarification what the nom means, apparently, is that this article is a WP:POVFORK of Halakha. ~~No opinion on that yet.~~ - crz crztalk 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Obvious merge to Halakha - crz crztalk 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Crz. Unsure on spelling though. Just H 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep – from what I understand, Conservative Judaism does follow its own "halakha," which is partially derived from Orthodox halakha, but is definitely separate. --Eliyak T·C 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- So let's make it a section in Ortho halakha. (As far as I understand, it's essentially the same, anyway) - crz crztalk 20:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Rename to Conservative view of Halakha or something like that. I think the topic deserves its own article, but nom is correct (at least in theory - in practice is another story...) that they do not have their own fundamentally different halakhic corpus. --DLand ^TALK 20:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, and/or rename - too large to merge.--Sandy Scott 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)