Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brit Shalom (naming ceremony)


 * 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 no consensus. People disagree about whether the sources we have are good enough in the light of WP:GNG.  Sandstein  07:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Brit shalom (naming ceremony)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article relates to an extensively small, fringe movement among (predominately) non-theistic followers of Judaism to not perform Brit Milah. Citations show that even supporters state that presently and reads more like a promotion page than a NPOV. Only a few, minor sources within it even relate to the subject. Perhaps merits a single sentence on Brit Milah (the article on the Jewish rite of circumcision). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 29.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Albeit short, article seems well referenced. Nominator accuses it of reading, but also seems to have an axe to grind with the so-called . — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Citations #2, #4, #7, #11, #17, #18 are from two non-reliable sites called Circumstitions and CircInfo; #5, #8, #9, #11, #14, #16, and #19 make no direct mention of the practice at all.
 * Even the citations within it that mention the topic state:
 * I agree that routine, non-consensual circumcision is wrong, but Wikipedia isn't a place to right great wrongs and there's nothing about it that seems independently notable for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how our opinion about the topic is at all relevant to the deletion or maintenance of this article (WP:VOICE). — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that it isn't relevant. I was responding to your statement that: . Given the response, I wanted to point out that I actually oppose it within developed countries. I just don't think the article is notable. Sorry if I misinterpreted your quote. KlayCax (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG --Shrike (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, passes WP:GNG as can be seen with several sources I was able to identify from a search, such as this in the Jewish Business News, this in the Jewish News, and this in The Forward. There are numerous other sources in addition to these three. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * All of those citations have numerous, extensive problems. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The first one is simply an editorial by the group promoting it — Doctors Opposing Circumcision — that was sent to Jewish Business News and simply lists anecdotal stories of Jewish families that didn't undergo it. That's a primary source and opinion article that clearly doesn't meet the standards of a reliable source. The second article that you linked (the one by Jewish News) simply states that an overwhelming small minority of Jews have did this. Then goes on to state that that . The third article — by The Forward — again specifies that it is a fringe movement, with the article sprinkled with quotes such as: and  and et cetera. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a clear instance of a WP: Fork that could be easily addressed on the existing Brit Milah page. The entire page (once the current fat is trimmed from it) could be summarized in about four or five sentences. There's almost no information about this at all: beyond overwhelmingly basic information; much less ones that meet the standards of notability. Per Wikipedia guidelines, there's no need for this to be a separate article. The existent pages on circumcision are perfectly sufficient. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I found and added a few more sources in the mainstream press (these are all there; I can't remember which ones I added, tbh):
 * The New York Times (2017)
 * The New Yorker (2021)
 * The Washington Post (2013)
 * NPR (2011)
 * The Times of Israel (2018)
 * Haaretz (2017, 2022)
 * Jewish Telegraphic Agency (2021)
 * I agree the article is poorly written, and rather short, but by the coverage of the topic in the mainstream press, it seems notable enough. It just needs to be improved (I've added some more sources, but unfortunately I'm not as inclined to write prose).— Guarapiranga ☎ 07:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the citations you give don't meet the requirements of WP: GNG. For instance, the The New Yorker article cited simply gives a throwaway line about the subject. WP:SIGCOV is clear that it has to be significant coverage: a brief mention doesn't suffice. I'm failing to see how the article couldn't be merged into Brit Milah as a subsection. Unless the topic is independently notable for other reasons — such as those I mentioned to Devonian Wombat — this is nothing more than a WP: REDUNDANTFORK. The claims above that you are listed are also heavily disputed. Many online citations (as well as those published by major academic publishers) have conversely argued that Jewish rates of circumcision are rising.
 * If the rite becomes increasingly prevalent in the coming years — to the point in which it becomes widespread among members of the Jewish community; or, becomes independently notable for other reasons, and can be significantly expanded beyond 5-8 sentences — then I can see an argument for forking. For now, it's better merged. KlayCax (talk)
 * Oh, please, the whole article, though written as a personal account rather than an exhaustive survey, is about the "circumcision debate" in the Jewish community, as Goldman (2004) and My Jewish Learning call it, which brit shalom is one response to. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing under a misconception of what WP:FRINGE is referring to, it does not preclude having articles on fringe movements, or else we would have to delete Church of Scientology, Theistic Satanism, Fourth International Posadist, and thousands of other articles on such clearly notable topics. FRINGE is largely used in order to guard against pseudoscience being presented as fact. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that something being fringe doesn't automatically disqualify it from having a Wikipedia article. However — unlike Brit Shalom — those articles meet the criteria WP:NFRINGE and WP: GNG. The present article doesn't. There's no reason that it couldn't be merged into Brit Milah. It's a clear case of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The information would be better placed elsewhere. There's no need to WP: Fork the information to a separate, isolated article that has almost no opportunity for expansion. KlayCax (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that you're mistaking small for non-notable,, especially when you say, just now, for instance, that you only see a reason for keeping the article . Small movements can be notable if their coverage by RS is not small. Otherwise, we'd also have to delete articles on Branch Davidians, the Order of the Solar Temple, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, etc. Further, the current state of a  is not a criterion for deletion, but whether the topic it covers is or isn't notable. At most, if an article is too crude to be published, below stub class, then one could argue for its draftification, not deletion on these grounds only. On the other hand, I see that  since nominating it for deletion; I may not agree with them all—and indeed we're discussing them in the article's talk page—but together we may be able to get the article up to scratch. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All of those articles meet the criteria of WP: GNG for other reasons. Brit Shalom doesn't.
 * A belief merely being fringe doesn't disqualify it from WP: GNG. However, it must meet standards of notability for other reasons. KlayCax (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  08:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete A few decent sources but it is already mentioned in Brit Milah and it seems WP:UNDUE for a separate page yet. Some of this info could go there instead. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, small but notable. Andre🚐 22:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Plenty of sources, enough to meet GNG: e.g. 1, 2, 3. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No editor is suggesting that the contents of Brit Shalom should be deleted and not be replicated elsewhere on Wikipedia.


 * We already have a satisfactory article on the Jewish position on circumcision that meets GNG and could adequately elaborate on the subject there — Brit Milah — and that separating the contents of the articles constitutes an unnecessary WP: Fork of the content matter. It would be better if the information is provided there, instead of it being WP: Fork'ed away to an obscure article that could not significantly expounded upon. (Beyond reliable sources stating that it involves Jewish parents who decline circumcision: there's not much else to presently write about it. It simply seems to predominately act as a term for Jewish parents who reject the rite of circumcision for their sons. Additionally, many Jews who reject Milah don't use the term "Brit Shalom" for their decision.)


 * If more citations on the subject comes in the coming years by reliable sources — where keeping the information on Brit Milah would make the article an instance of WP:COATRACK — then a separate article should be created. For now, it's a WP: Fork. Consolidation and a merger with Brit Milah is the best path forward. (Note: I'm the original AfD submitter.) It would be much better placed merged within the preexisting Brit Milah article in a subsection. Contents of the existing article could then be merged into it. KlayCax (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet over 2 weeks ago I questioned you at the article talk page on the refs you removed from the article, and you didn't follow up. From the start of your nomination you seem determined to erase brit shalom from WP bc practice it. We've already established that notability is determined by RS coverage (of which brit shalom has plenty), not widespread adoption. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What are you specifically referring to? I've been consistent in stating that the current information within the article should be merged into other relevant Wikipedia pages: such as Brit Milah and cultural views on circumcision. If anything, the present layout relegates and hides the information into a low-viewed (compare the daily English page views of Brit Milah to Brit Shalom) and hardly linked article in which the vast majority of users looking for the information will never come across. Moving information from article A to article B isn't erasing it. Considering the fact that it's being transferred unto articles with far more regular viewership than its previous location. That's the complete opposite of erasure.


 * Whether it meets WP: RS is debatable at best. (For reasons I addressed above.) Regardless of the matter — even if it did meet the criteria — there's already an area for the information to go: Brit Milah and cultural views on circumcision. It's an unnecessary WP: Fork that raises a multitude of issues. Is it a general page on circumcision/anti-circumcision attitudes within Judaism? Is it specifically referring to a set of anti-circumcision views within Judaism? Or what? Whatever the answer is: it seems to highly go against the case of it meriting its own article. For instance: would the proposed Brit Shalom article refer to all Jewish parents through all of history who haven't circumcised their sons? Should pro-Seleucid Jews (who overwhelmingly did not circumcise their sons per their edicts) during the time of the Maccabean Revolt count? What about "radical" (in the context of Jewish theology) Reform Jews during the 1800s? Should modern day Jews who don't circumcise their sons but don't identify with Brit Shalom be included? (As mentioned above) Particularly considering that previous "anti-circumcision" movements have already existed among followers of Judaism. If they are included, the article should obviously be merged into somewhere else. (Since it would no longer specifically be about the modern movement of Brit Shalom: and would be something like Jewish attitudes towards circumcision, which obviously seems to already fit within the article of Brit Milah) If not, what warrants this particular movement obtaining its own article, since it would be a broader topic that would encompass other views on circumcision throughout the history of Judaism. Why should this specific subsection of anti-circumcision viewpoints be WP: Split while other movements in history aren't included? And why can't the information presently in the article be addressed on other, current pages? KlayCax (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  20:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.