Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin Date
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tefillin Date
I've never heard of such a thing. I suspect this phrase is rarely used if at all. Eliyak T·C 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Well I don't think you should nominate this because you never heard of it, seems notable. Lakers 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I have heard of it, and I can say with 100% certainty that the term has no place in Wikipedia for a host of reasons, most directly per WP:NEO.--DLandTALK 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep But it would be nice to see some sources Ron Ritzman 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I tried to find similars like "shack pack" since that's what sorority girls call the kit they bring along on overnights to parties. Don't get me wrong, I like it, it's cute, but it fails WP:N.Christopher Jost 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We have One-night stand, and while I haven't heard of this, I suppose it's probably in the same "bin." Point being, if somebody heard this and came to look it up, it'd make sense to be here, just as I can see somebody looking up "One Night Stand." Adequate sourcing may be another issue, but that's not the nom, and I don't care to try and open that can of worm at the moment... --Auto(talk / contribs) 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Article needs reliable sources, an assertion of notability, and compliance with WP:NEO in order to be kept. Currently none. Without these, deletion request is within policy. The issue is not whether or not the topic is controversial, it's whether or not it's encyclopedic. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. 39 ghits per this search, including the Wikipedia article and references to it. Mostly blogs, forums, private web sites and the like. Note that this source isn't usable -- the term appears in a non-peer-reviewed reader's comment. Of the 39, only this appeared to be even an arguable WP:RS, and it mentions the term only in passing -- just not enough mention to support an encyclopedia article. The term may be the sort that gets mentioned in print but not on the internet. But I doubt it, given the kind of neologism it is. Open to reconsideration if sources are found, however. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Shira, you know as well as anyone does that this phenomenon is old and widespread (and is quite encyclopedic), especially among the MO youth who are not so eloquent and won't get it "published" in journals and at the same time their parents (and sadly even their teachers and rabbis) run in shame from these kind of discussions or deliberately ignore this topic with determined blinkers even though it's been been around for a veeeery long time (or perhaps because they did the same thing themselves when they were that age...?) The only reason it's not discussed more often in a "scholarly way" is that this is a very shameful and embarrassing subject. Thus, there is no reason to run to delete and censor it under the guise of all sorts of Wikipedia rules which cannot hide an important sociological phenomenon (actually it's a failing!) No use acting like pro-Chabad editors who swing into action to delete comments about the Meshichistim or the Rebbe when it's not to their liking. Time to grow up and face the facts. IZAK 06:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this last sentence is supposed to mean. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What it means, unfortunately, is that I've noted few instances of Shirahadasha weighing in on a Judaic-related AfD without IZAK making retaliatory claims of bias. RGTraynor 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it is at attack on Shira. I think it is an attack on PinchasC. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not an attack on anybody. This is just by way of observation: That editors are human and they have their obvious pet topics they not only protect but also promote (when they actually get down to some serious creative writing) so that we have some on the "cutting edge" of Modern Orthodoxy promoting neologisms such as the new-fangled Partnership minyan or voting to keep derogatory articles about Haredi non-entities such as Shlomo Helbrans, but in this instance voting to delete a topic ("Tefillin Date") that casts Modern Orthodoxy in a negative light, which is much like some obviously pro-Chabad editors, I wasn't even thinking of anyone specific, who will try to eradicate or "chop down" topics that cast Chabad in a negative light such as the Barry Gurary or the Yechi articles so that, unfortunately, the whole truth and nothing but the truth never gets to see the light of day. Now that's not so complicated or nasty is it? IZAK 08:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it is at attack on Shira. I think it is an attack on PinchasC. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- What it means, unfortunately, is that I've noted few instances of Shirahadasha weighing in on a Judaic-related AfD without IZAK making retaliatory claims of bias. RGTraynor 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this last sentence is supposed to mean. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Shira, you know as well as anyone does that this phenomenon is old and widespread (and is quite encyclopedic), especially among the MO youth who are not so eloquent and won't get it "published" in journals and at the same time their parents (and sadly even their teachers and rabbis) run in shame from these kind of discussions or deliberately ignore this topic with determined blinkers even though it's been been around for a veeeery long time (or perhaps because they did the same thing themselves when they were that age...?) The only reason it's not discussed more often in a "scholarly way" is that this is a very shameful and embarrassing subject. Thus, there is no reason to run to delete and censor it under the guise of all sorts of Wikipedia rules which cannot hide an important sociological phenomenon (actually it's a failing!) No use acting like pro-Chabad editors who swing into action to delete comments about the Meshichistim or the Rebbe when it's not to their liking. Time to grow up and face the facts. IZAK 06:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No sources provided and no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a WP:NEO violation. Alansohn 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep because this expression, and the phenomonon, has been around for a loooooong time. It's most definitely NOT a nelogism. IZAK 05:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- No sources, delete. Vizjim 09:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, does not seem notable enough for an article on wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Whether or not the phenomenon is recent or ancient is not the issue. There are no sources for this and never will be that is the definition of WP:OR. The real curiosity of this phenomenon is that the people are very strict with a relatively minor law (tefillin) and ignore a major law (premarital sex - especially if she was a nida). I would support the inclusion of this general idea in Off the derech as this is not uncommon with those people at the fringes of orthodox Judaism. Jon513 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. An article about an expression? or a phenomenon? without multiple non-trivial published sources about it in any event. Whether or not the phrase is used by anyone is of no consequence - NYC JD (interrogatories) 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable and emblematic concept. Widely known and notable. Havn't you ever been on one? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)I mean delete, per Shira. Sorry IZAK - but cummon there are only 29 ghits, I don't think that people are covering up for MO failings here in the same way as some users try to for Chabad's dirty laundry. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)- Delete - maybe a neologism, maybe not, doesn't matter. There's no assertion of encyclopedic notability here, or indeed of notability full stop. No reliable sources, no article. Moreschi Request a recording? 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hold on a minute On third thoughts there do apear to be some good sources for the idea of a "tefillin date" here, here and one from Luke Ford: [1]. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is essentially a dicdef and/or unencyclopedaic. Of the three sources listed by David Spart above, the first two are the same article. Out. Brianyoumans 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- no no, there are three sources - but the first is a link to a google news archive search that gives two sources. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The first two sources are ones I cited above -- the Jerusalem post one is a one-sentence comment left by a reader (not from the newspaper itself), and the Los Angeles Jewish Journal has a single sentence in an article on a different topic that mentions the term once (as does the Luke Ford article). We're starting to get somewhere, but not sure this is enough coverage to support an article on the topic or establish that it's in common written use. Unfortunately the policies result in some perfectly good topics not being written enough about to support an article. This may be one. I've heard of the term myself, and if we had come up with more sources, my vote would have been Keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okey dokey. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- So Shira, if, as you say: you've "heard of the term myself, and if we had come up with more sources, my vote would have been Keep" so then improve the darn article instead of pedalling backwards to contradict yourself. Wikipedia respects human intelligence and will allow a topic to grow if enough intelligent editors insist that the topic is part of the real world it is part of. Myabe you know of a few professors of Jewish studies... IZAK 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Okey dokey. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- The first two sources are ones I cited above -- the Jerusalem post one is a one-sentence comment left by a reader (not from the newspaper itself), and the Los Angeles Jewish Journal has a single sentence in an article on a different topic that mentions the term once (as does the Luke Ford article). We're starting to get somewhere, but not sure this is enough coverage to support an article on the topic or establish that it's in common written use. Unfortunately the policies result in some perfectly good topics not being written enough about to support an article. This may be one. I've heard of the term myself, and if we had come up with more sources, my vote would have been Keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- no no, there are three sources - but the first is a link to a google news archive search that gives two sources. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't find any reliable references on Google Epbr123 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, there are enough sources to show it's indeed a real term, taking into account the fact that internet sources might not be the best measure in this case considering the circles in which the term is used. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, doesn't deserve an article even if there are sources. Recury 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Valueless information Chesdovi 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Non-Jew with a view This feels like an urbandictionary entry to me (but it's not on UD, should I add it?). As a Gentile who doesn't immediately recognize the term tefillin, I find it interesting, & think it should be somewhere. I think some of us need to start our own sites with info that may run afoul of cries of "NN" (or has done). In the end, I don't know enough about the subculture to know if it's a widespread term, but it's probably mostly harmless, so I lean toward Keep. Ventifax 05:25, 2 April 2007 (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.
