Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Source Judaism (2nd nomination)

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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn per this comment. Huon (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Judaism

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

Article used for religious advertisment per WP:SPAM, and a free-to-post original works per WP:OR. JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the article is being used to advertise something inappropriately then that should be edited out and the article protected. There are plenty of sources - any reason all of them should be considered unreliable to the point where this topic no longer passes WP:GNG? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: Every reference in the article are all based on advertising organizations per WP:OR. In truth, there is not a single source, nor any relevant information other than redirecting to these organizations per WP:SPAM. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is plainly mistaken:

And there are plenty more. The above books are referenced extensively, especially Rushkoff's work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The contention that this article has problems does not warrant deleting it. The topic is clearly a valid one for an article and fits well under the broader rubric of open-source religion and the free culture movement. The editor proposing deletion is free to instead edit it to address the stated concerns or discuss them on its talk page. The statement that "there is not a single [non-advertising] source" is incorrect even now, e.g. for the Atlantic article. Shorespirit (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Shorespirit Open-source religion is an article based on an organization and not policy. What are you suggesting from article Open-source religion? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JudeccaXIII I'm afraid I don't understand your question at all. The article open-source religion does not deal with one particular organization but with a concept with which various organizations have been affiliated. Open-source Judaism can be considered a subset of open-source religion, and the situation of its article is analogous. Shorespirit (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Shorespirit Do not manipulate the content of this discussion as you did here: [1], and I am assuming your stating with these article's open-source religion and the free culture movement that anyone on Wikipedia can state their thoughts on Wikipedia articles involving religion. If I am wrong about this, please do clarify. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JudeccaXIII Your understanding of what I wrote is indeed completely wrong. My point, in the context of this thread, is that open-source religion and free culture movement are phenomena that are proper topics for Wikipedia articles, and that Open Source Judaism is equally valid. Shorespirit (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think there's a serious language barrier here somewhere and JudeccaXIII is struggling to get his head around guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And these weren't "assumptions"; that was general advice. But I'm happy to retain all relevant discussion here rather than raising it quietly on your talk page. That's a silly response to obviously well-intentioned, non-template suggestions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111 All I asked was some clarification, that was it. Do not contradict the topic towards me as I will consider it off-topic per WP:LISTEN to avoid "Deletion of article" per WP:LISTEN. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to draw attention to your conduct to "avoid deletion". Deletion will be avoided (the article will be kept) because the subject is notable and this was an ill-considered nomination contrary to WP:BEFORE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:51, 13 December 2014 (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.