Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Orthodoxy

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 Merge to Avi Weiss (already done). How the material is handled there is another question all by itself, but outside the scope of this AfD. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Orthodoxy

Open Orthodoxy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This movement does not exist. It's the brainchild of one rabbi in one synagogue in the Bronx, NY. There is no media or scholarly coverage of this movement outside of the movement itself, which must, of course, be excluded. Besides, not having any clear boundaries between orthodox, modern orthodox, open orthodox (go figure...) this article serves as an unhelpful, unmergable vehicle for the promotion of the religious musings of Rabbi Weiss and/or creator user:Shirahadasha. Which is good, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. To reiterate, I don't think merging this anywhere is a good idea. The Rabbi is borderline notable, but his ideas don't belong here. WP:NOT for things invented in synagogue one day. Delete. - crz crztalk 13:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note 1: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 13:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note 2: All of this article's contents had actually already been merged [1] into the Rabbi Avi Weiss article and the page redirected [2] before this vote was called for. The revert was restored [3] and thus this vote arose. IZAK 09:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Avi Weiss, no merge for reasons given in the nomination. Otherwise, delete. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak delete For now, I think we can delete it, but Avi Weiss is not NN, he is a very controversial political activist and rabbi, and YCT (or CT, if you want) is his brainchild. It might take years to see how it pans out. After all, by definition, Open and Orthodoxy don't meet. Yossiea 14:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. No media coverage? This doesn't qualify as media coverage? Will dig up some more. Best, --Shirahadasha 14:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Also, FYI, the article describes a "philosophy", not a "movement" and certainly not a "religion". The question is whether the thing as it is meets the standard criteria -- WP:N, WP:V, and sufficient content to write a stand-alone article. The question is not whether it meets criteria for something the article doesn't claim it to be -- "movement", "religion", etc. -- and certainly not whether or not it's something one agrees with. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Shirahadasha, just to be clear, are you voting for keep? Valley2city 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep' Firstly, this article meets the standard criteria in terms of WP:N, WP:V, and sufficient material for a stand-alone article. Secondly, the nomination raises a red herring -- it says there is no evidence of the existence of a "movement". But the article describes it as a philosophy, not a movement. And philosophies are often associated with their founding philosophers, so long as the philosophies are themselves independently notable. As additional evidence of more widespread use in addition to the press coverage, see also e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7]. This has attracted enough attention and followers to be legitimately more than something specific to Avi Weiss and to be an approach a substantial number of individuals and congregations subscribe to. --Shirahadasha 07:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• "This process has resulted in the development of open orthodoxy whereby adherents to halakhah (Jewish law) re-engage both with secular studies, Jews of all denominations and global issues. This movement has its own rabbinic school in New York, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Some within this movement have experimented with orthodox egalitarianism where gender equality solutions are found through halakhah. This has led to women taking on more leadership roles. Others in this movement are increasingly re-engaging with social justice issues from a halakhic point of view." No. This is trivial to support an article on a new religion. Any books written on it by anyone outside the movement? - crz crztalk 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Redirect into Avi Weiss and keep all the material in the Open Orthodoxy article as part of Avi Weiss. Rabbi Weiss is very notable and Open Orthoodxy is notable but the ideology is entirely by one person, one author, and one director Avi Weiss. If, and when, they produce other authors and thinkers then it should become its own article. Or if they hold a convention that brings all the fellow travelers of ideology under one tent, then it is notable as Open Orthoodxy. Or when they form their own Rabbinical association. Right now, it is still a one person show. YCT has not produced any notable graduates yet. The movement does indeed exist, and is notable, but is entirely STILL linked to one single person. --Jayrav 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I find crz much too biased on this one, using inflamitory language of "new relgion" givng his owe definitions of Orthodoxy. Yes, Open Orthodoxy is being discussed at the GA as we type, and is regualrly featured in the Federation Jewish papers. It is certainly more notable and less advocacy than the many many kiruv outreach rabbis who have pages on WIKI. They only have press coverage when they buy ads or put out their own self promotion. --Jayrav 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• redirect to avi weiss. a movement is not one person or one institution. Jon513 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Though it is a fledgling movement in Judaism, it is developing. Yeshivat Chovevei Torah only started ordaining people a few years ago, give it time. I know rabbis from this movement I also know that many Modern Orthodox disparage them and the movement. It is distinct from Modern Orthodoxy and other Jewish movements, and is distinct from its creator, Rabbi Avi Weiss. It deserves its own page. I, by the way, am not part of the Open Orthodoxy movement just so you don't think there is a POV motivation here. Valley2city 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, crz, do you feel you are making an unbiased assertion here? Do you have something against the article or do you have something against Open Orthodoxy? I'm curious for comment. Valley2city 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hehe, no, I've never heard of it. Besides, not being modern orthodox, I am not exposed to the disparagement of the movement. I've never heard of it. Asserting that it's a distinct movement does not make it so. That YCT has only started ordaining people - give it a few year - is a good argument for deletion. - crz crztalk 17:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Avi Weiss. It appears that the merge has already been completed. I agree with others that "Open Orthodoxy" is an idea of Rabbi Weiss and has not gained wider acknowledgment in the Jewish community. 129.98.212.72 17:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Avi Weiss. Alternatively, Merge as (as yet unlabeled) stream of Modern Orthodoxy. There is nothing inherent in Open Orthodoxy that distinguishes it from classical Modern Orthodoxy. It is a movement characterized by resistance to Charedization, and hardly has a philosophy of its own. In fact, I suspect that outside the major Jewish population centers (i.e. New York), most Modern Orthodox would fall into the Open Orthodox category. --Kotzker 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and merge reminents with Rabbi Weiss. As of now, this movement does not exist. Chavatshimshon 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Avi Weiss, with short mention on Modern Orthodoxy. Also merge Yeshivat Chovevei Torah with Avi Weiss. Little in either article to clearly delineate this one-man-show from actual leftish Modern Orthodoxy (e.g. Emanuel Rackman, Norman Lamm). Actual numbers of this "movement" cannot be stated with accuracy. JFW | T@lk 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There is little to disntinguish most members of the Edah Charadis from each other, and there is nothing to seperate them from their schools. If you dont know the distinctions between the Rabbis then do not comment. Shall we determine Charedi Rabbi by the knowledge of their uniqueness among Modern Orthodox? Maybe we should collapse all Chardi Rabbis into the Chasam SOfer or Satmar Rov? I am not connected to Open Orthodoxy or its school but leave the debate to those for whom the distinctions matter. --Jayrav 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Surely you're joking, Jayrav? I am not disagreeing that Avi Weiss may be a visionary of Modern Orthodoxy, but no member of the Edah Chareidis claims to have started a new Jewish movement. Obviously all Charedi rabbis deserve their own articles like Avi Weiss does, and some even deserve special pages on their philosophy (e.g. Torah im Derech Eretz, which is of enormous religious & social significance and 200 years older than Open Orthodoxy). JFW | T@lk 14:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to I-don't-care-where. The information in the article (not necessarily all of it, but most) is interesting and useful and should not be deleted. But "Open Orthodoxy" is a term I've never heard outside of this discussion, and it should not be its own article until it has reached an appreciable and distinct identity. Following that same logic, I disagree with JFW's suggestion to merge Yeshivat Chovevei Torah as well. It is undoubtedly a distinct and real educational institution, and deserves its own article no less than any other school. --Keeves 21:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Avi Weiss, certainly. I disagree with several points made by some editors, though. Open Orthodoxy does exist, and it is a unique movement. I imagine that it will become more notable as time passes, but as of yet it is not. A remark for Dr. Wolff - I am surprised that you use Norman Lamm as a paradigm of "leftish" Modern Orthodoxy. While Haredi he is not, R' Lamm is well known as the voice of Centrist Orthodoxy, which distances itself hashkafically from the left-leaning tendencies of people like Avi Weiss. --DLand^TALK 21:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with the Avi Weiss article as had previously done [8], seems obvious to me, but Shirahadasha wanted a vote. My reasons remain the same, and I will repeat them here again because they apply to this vote: the article cannot stand alone otherwise it would be deleted as a neologism in violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, because "Open Orthodoxy" is Weiss's own very recent creation and it does not have any recognition from anyone within the broader world of Orthodoxy, and thus Wikipedia is not the place to publish new ideologies. All the material belongs with the Avi Weiss article as it's Weiss's baby, and is not a noted universal movement. IZAK 09:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge How many thousands of Jews are "open Orthodox"? Chesdovi 17:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect It almost seems like ..Made up in school in one day --ArmadilloFromHell 17:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 08:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Inaccurate reason for nomination for deletion. Masterhomer 16:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• It seems that a merge and redirect is in order; the delete votes strike me as odd: do these mean that some people belive that none of this material belongs in the article on Weiss and that this term should not redirect to that article? - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that a lot of people have biases against Open Orthodoxy that they cannot see beyond POV which is why they are pushing for a delete and not even a merge. It's unfortunate. Valley2city 21:05, 20 November 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.