Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati

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. Johnleemk | Talk 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati

A minor development within Judaism that attempts to increase women's participation to prayer services. Two Google hits. Number of groups actually following this philosophy estimated <20 worldwide. JFW | T@lk 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete on grounds of notability. JFW | T@lk 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Not voting just yet, but strongly against any attempt to merge into Minyan. Avi 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Voting Delete based on last point here WP:NPOV#Undue weight Avi 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment given that the concept is a relatively recent development (earliest comment permitting the idea appeared in 2001—5 years ago at most), and by comparison to Reconstructionist Judaism a "branch of Judaism" which apparently consists of a marginally more notable approximately 110 congregations[1] (began as a concept as far back as the 1920s, split formally from Conservative Judaism in 1968—38 years ago), I think a bit of leniency is in order. That said, this long article doesn't belong (at least not at that length) in minyan, nor am I convinced that the sum total of the content belongs anywhere on WP just yet, not because the phenomenon of women's participation in orthodox prayer services is unnoteworthy, but because the name for the article amounts to an endorsement by WP of a specific expression thereof. The number of groups actually following the philosophy addressed by the article is much higher than 20 (and the assertion that it's fewer is spurious at best), but unlike the one relevant hit in JFW's google search, they are not organized to the level where they're all out publishing websites. A cursory glance through this page indicates that the concept extends far beyond a simple one-hit result on Google. That the article (previously a section of the minyan article) is given the name of a particular group practicing what the article describes is a different issue, which should be addressed at WP:RM. The article has merit, it just needs to be renamed and have a lot of work put into encyclopædizing it. As for where it goes, like I said earlier, it doesn't belong, especially with such undue weight, in minyan, being more appropriate in Role of women in Judaism. Tomer^talk 05:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up and merge with Role of women in Judaism per my comment above. Tomer^talk 05:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's almost all POV original research meant to turn the left-wing segment of Orthodox Judaism into just another "branch" of Conservative Judaism -- which is just plain dumb and dishonest, like the Conservative's pretending to go by Halakha when in fact they just want to dump as much of it as they can. If this article has anything of value let it be put into either Modern Orthodox Judaism or Role of women in Judaism. Anyhow, how can anyone justify such a long rambling basically neologism of a name, in Hebrew yet, to posture as something significant? It ain't happenin' babe, a minyan is a minyan and will always be a minyan ... of Jewish MEN. IZAK 08:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I acknowledge Tomer has a point. While the phenomenon is indeed significantly broader than its web presence suggests, because of its novelty and relative informality, there is indeed not necessarily universal agreement on what to call it, so for WP to pick what may at this point be a mere candidate name may indeed be leading rather than following what it is trying to describe. Although others will need to judge the underlying merits. I acknowledge that the subject-matter is controversial. I would only hope that any disagreement regarding its merits, as a matter of personal religious philosophy, would not be confused with the issue of the phenomenom's notability, or interest to researchers and to the public, for purposes of making an editorial decision. It might be useful to do a Google search under "Shira Hadasha". Indeed, Shira Hadasha may well be sufficiently noteworthy on the web at this point to deserve its own article based on such a Google search alone, if so perhaps the content could be put there with a sentence or two and a link in articles like Minyan and Role of women in Judaism, etc. --Anystat 15:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You are new here, so let me point out a few things that you hopefully won't take as condescension. First, this is an encyclopedia, not an indescriminate collection of information. Please review WP:NOT. Second, wikipedia has a policy prohibiting original research (read the guideline, it probably means something other than what you perceive). Third, WP has a policy requiring that information be presented from a neutral perspective. Much of the information in the article is presented as unabashèd advocacy. Any advocacy is fine, as long as the [substantial] opposition is also presented. Please review WP:NPOV. Finally, in either Minyan or Role of women in Judaism, the information presented in the edits you propose give undue weight to what is, at least at this early stage, a new and [relatively, in the grand scheme things, at least presently] insignificant phenomenon. Including information in the depth this addition attempts to gives undue weight to what thus far is not proven to be anything more than a bit of fuzz on a radar screen. Copy this stuff to User:Anystat/Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati if you like and if it becomes more relevant to the Jewish world as a whole in the next 2-5 years, bring it back (to Role of women in Judaism tho, not to Minyan). Tomer^talk 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Three points. First, there is evidence of an actual, reasonably coherent phenomenon here. The sources verify that services, when described, are conducted in a similar manner, with women being allowed to do similar things and not allowed to do other similar things, and similar reasons being cited for why and why not. This consistency simply wouldn't happen in some general effort to synthesize Orthodoxy and Feminism or to explore women's roles in Judaism. It indicates a coherent, clarified phenomenon that can legitimately be treated as a distinct subject. Second, the phenomenon, while novel and hardly major, is not of merely isolated interest. Third, the neutrality of the article has been enhanced since it was first introduced. --Anystat 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with the status of women article. Like it or not, this is a notable phenomenon. Benami 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and original research --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - because people looking for the newly coined term need an encyclopedia article telling them the meaning of the term. Wikipedia, as a comprehensive encyclopedia, has articles on extreme left and right topics as long as the entry is written from a neutral POV. This is a notable phenomena even if one disagrress with it. The article needs to be fleshed out and not just a list of places.

Anonymous user, please read this: WP:NPOV#Undue weight, especially the last bullet-point. Avi 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Avi. Stifle 00:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment : Given that the demographic center of Judaism is roughly the left wing of Conservativism, this viewpoint is merely a little to the right of center. What's all this about it being 'extreme'? On the other hand, seems to me that statements like "the Conservative's pretending to go by Halakha when in fact they just want to dump as much of it as they can.", or "It ain't happenin' babe, a minyan is a minyan and will always be a minyan ... of Jewish MEN" are pretty durn good examples of what WP DOESN'T want in its editorial judgments. It's a public-interest encyclopaedia. -- anonymous
• Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 22:43, 24 January 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.