Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewdar (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 delete. Of those who argued 'keep', I find very little to back up their claims. Richard Arthur Norton's argument that people come to Wikipedia to find out what a word means is untrue - that is what a dictionary is for (and Wiktionary don't accept urban neologisms). Weirdoactor asserts it passes WP:V without showing why, and proceeds to attack all those who opined 'delete'. AnonEMouse says to keep as it's a 'many-off joke' (I do not understand this). RockMFR admits it has not been the subject of multiple reliable references yet suggests 'keep' anyway. Tarninth's keep is ignored. House of Scandal's keep is based on 'I like it'. Lyrl states it has multiple reliable sources, when it does not. Pseudothyrum states it ought to be kept as it will pass into the mainstream at a later date - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darkspots, finally, fails to address why the article should be kept with any reference to policy or guideline, instead saying that it should be kept as there are people who simply know whether or not someone is Jewish--and they really do, there is a set of signals; not a good reason for an encyclopaedia article.

The "delete"s surround its lack of reliable sources (agreed), original synthesis (maybe), trivial coverage only (agreed), it being a dictionary definition (not really correct), and being a neologism (agreed). I beliebe the arguments for deletion strongly outweigh those to keep, and thus, delete. Proto :: ►  14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewdar

 * — (View AfD)

This was previously nominated at Articles for deletion/Jewdar. The article had a substantial re-write after most of the "delete no sources" weighed in, and although the sources were weak, they were enough to nullify the previous arguments. I closed it as no-consensus and suggested that it be renominated so that there could be frank discussion of the quality of the sources. It's oddly gone through Deletion review/Log/2006 December 29 first, but right back here it is. No opinon at this time. - brenneman  01:55, 4 January 2007
 * Delete per original nom. Washinton Post ref looks like a tongue-in-cheek opinion piece to me. Chovain 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per original nom. References all appear to use it jokingly, word hasn't seen widespread use (in contrast to the similar 'gaydar').--Velvet elvis81 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per original nom. MER-C 06:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, tongue in cheek usage is still usage. People come to Wikipedia to have neologisms explained, and The Washington Post was a good reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For this sort of thing, people ought to go to Wiktionary instead. —Psychonaut 12:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If people come to Wikipedia to have neologisms explained, they will be sorely disappointed, since that is not and has never been the purpose of Wikipedia. They should go to Urban Dictionary instead.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Urban Dictionary has no references, its a blog that anyone can post to. Wikipedia certainly is the place to go and I have rarely been disappointed. Wikipedia has a threshold for acceptance, but they are still here, and in more detail than a dicdef. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, all the sources are either unreliable or trivial mentions. Approaching an original synthesis as well.--Nydas (Talk) 09:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per my original statement from December 29th. ~ IICATSII punch the keys 10:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete My crap sense is tickling. Danny Lilithborne 10:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article now provides a lot of references, but these are all to mere use of the term.  Notability would be established only if the term were the actual subject of multiple, independent published works.  If such citations can be provided, then the article can be kept, or recreated in the future, but as-is it doesn't meet WP:N. —Psychonaut 12:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG/Speedy Keep Satisfies WP:V in triplicate (which is policy, not a guideline, as is WP:NEO). The Delete votes here (as in the original AfD) seem to be either jokes ("crap sense"?), "per" votes (which is laziness/bad faith, as this is a debate, NOT a vote) or they don't quote actual policy. Using bureaucracy to commit article murder is bad faith. Shame! You hug your mother with the hands on the same fingers you type these delete votes with? Oy! You should BE so lucky! -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 13:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i c wut u did there. --- RockMFR 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete it's a one-off joke. Coverage is trivial, not substantive. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a many-off joke. Coverage is not heavy, not solely focusing on the term in the articles, but not passing mentions either, they're important parts of each article, the articles would not be the same without them; and there are a lot of articles. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The original concerns seem to have been dealt with. WP:NEO does not apply - this is not newly coined. Dicdef does not apply, as the article in its current form goes beyond a simple dicdef. WP:RS seems to be taken care of, though it is debatable whether Jewdar has been the subject of multiple works. --- RockMFR 15:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, if you take out the stuff that is sourced to Urban Dictionary, mailing lists and forums, you're left with "Jewdar means you can tell when other people are Jews." Why anyone would want an encyclopedia article on a joke neologism that has zero impact on society anyway is beyond me. Recury 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You're also left with citations from Salon and the Washington Post. You must have left that out that whilst rushing to edit an article about NASCAR, which no doubt has a HUGE impact on society. “Delete” arguments that posit how an article does not impact THAT PARTICULAR editor’s life never cease to amuse and entertain. Keep ‘em comin’, folks.-- weirdoactor tundefinedc 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations to reliable sources that say next to nothing about the topic, yes. Maybe read a little more closely before posting next time. But tell us, then. How have Jewdars affected you? Recury 19:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "next to nothing", you mean "articles that assert the notability of Jewdar", then you are SPOT ON. I'll read more carefully if you promise to do the same, especially before making counterfactual arguments in an AfD. And re: "Jewdars" (sic), the term has no plural; much like deer or moose. As to how Jewdar has affected me; I have it, passed from my mother and father, and it has led me to MANY tasty meals and lovely parties. So there. I’m not sure how jewdar has affected me PERSONALLY should be relevant as to it’s inclusion in the encyclopedia, as the last time I checked, it’s called “Wikipedia”, and not “weirdoactorpedia” or “recurypedia”, and thus the entries should probably reflect a broader range of needs and experiences than yours and mine. After all, what is Wikipedia but “a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field”, correct? -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 20:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about notability (although that case for deletion can certainly be made). I'm talking about having sources to actually write an article from. Even if they did assert notability (which they don't) that would leave us with an article that says: "Jewdar means you can tell when other people are Jews. Jewdar is a notable neologism that has been used upwards of 3 times in published writing." Find some reliable sources that talk about the term enough that you could actually write something substantive about it, or it's going to be deleted. Recury 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Were you using your "scary voice" just them? Oooooooooooh. Booga booga. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 20:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Flipping my Twoface coin. Heads! ---> KEEP!  Delete Keep WP:IAR for the win! Tarinth 22:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources of the widespread usage of this article. And please discount Tarinth's !vote.  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, but can we at least agree that this should be nominated for WP:LAME if it comes back to AfD again? Tarinth 23:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per original nom. Still has insufficient sourcing showing widespread use. Bwithh 00:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete :: IMHO neologism; dict-def required rather than deep analysis; divisive, quasi-racialist; entire subject represents a thinly-veiled attack page -- Simon Cursitor 08:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Is there any support at all for a merge to Jewish humor? I'm leaving on a trip in a few hours, and won't have Wikipedia access; but I thought I'd toss that idea into the ether. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 12:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article satisfies Verifiability. It provides information that Wiktionary can't provide and that might be of interest to many.  Many of the comments given above, such as stating that it appeared in a tongue-in-cheek op-ed piece, discussing how it has affected us, or saying that the term is "divisive, quasi-racialist" are irrelevant.  Yes, the term is used "jokingly" - that's the nature of the term not a basis for deletion of the article.  BTW, I think "jewdar" is stupid, unclever, and (yes) quasi-racist term -- but it is of interest to Wikipedians and my opinion of the word doesn't matter.  I suspect some people have axes to grind and they are attacking the article because they don't like the subject of the article. Note that this is the THIRD attempt to get rid of this article.  -- House of Scandal 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It provides information that Wiktionary can't provide and that might be of interest to many. What information, exactly, are you referring to?  And, yes, I think a merge to Jewish Humor might be appropriate.--Velvet elvis81 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is of interest to Wikipedians. Please see WP:ILIKEIT.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic neologism GabrielF 01:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Still not notable. Bad sources, too. I see urban dictionary as the first one. Anomo 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Anomo. Alex43223Talk 07:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, insufficient sources. The Mob Rules 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename Suggest creating an article on "goydar" ( which I've heard more often, and sounds less racial ) and merge to that. Squidfryerchef 22:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't that be like renaming the "gaydar" article "straightdar"? Seems odd. Lyrl  Talk C 22:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep has multiple sources establishing notability. That it is currently mostly a dicdef is not reason for deletion - it has the potential for expansion similar to gaydar. Lyrl Talk C 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It has zero reliable sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this article has potential for expansion once the term becomes more widely known and used in time. If this is deleted now I can imagine that it will only have to be re-created at a later date once it passes in to the mainstream. --Pseudothyrum 06:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment that is generally what would be done with a neologism, it would be deleted and the article recreated later when it could be demonstrated that it is a mainstream term. wikipedia isn't a crystalball and we don't keep articles around waiting for the day they pass muster.--Isotope23 18:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per GabrielF. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because half the sources are trash (and the joke of citing The eXile on any topic, let alone this one, is in seriously bad taste) and the rest is insufficient to establish persistent notability. (Basically, several of the authors may have arrived at the term independently and none of them seem to be likely to use it ever again.) —xyzzyn 19:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable term, and there are no sources establishing notability of the term. It's nothing more than a joke spun off of the "Gaydar" concept, which can be applied to many groups. A few writers coming up with the idea, possibly independently (as the above comment states), is not evidence of a widespread notability. WarpstarRider 22:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per GabrielF. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 10:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not encyclopedic, or even close for that matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, "joke" neologism that if anywhere, belongs at Urban Dictionary not Wikipedia. -- M P er el ( talk 15:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable neologism. Beit Or 17:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New material added
Without even trying very hard, I found uses of the word in New York Press, Artforum International Magazine and The Weekly Standard. One assumes the reader already understands the term; another regards it as a serious ability. I doubt these additions will make a difference to those who have made it a personal mission that Wikipedia not have an article on this word. House of Scandal 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It's not relevant that this term has been invented by multiple newspaper columnists. The fact is that "Jewdar" is not a cultural phenomenon to the extent that there is one coherent idea of it which deserves its own article. The ideas expressed in this article belong in articles where their information will actually be helpful such as Judaism in America, rather than making a neologism out of them. Ashibaka (tock) 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC


 * Comment If Wikipedia was around 25 years ago, we'd be having this argument about "Yuppie". And I think there is definitely a phenomenon where, if you're in a particular group, you can tell who is and isn't one of your group even when you can't go by physical appearance.  The use of the terms "Jewdar" or "Goydar" are allusions to the obvious example of this phenomenon, "Gaydar". Squidfryerchef 22:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this is a reason to delete rather than keep. While new words & expressions appear daily, most vanish without a trace. That is why we do not have articles on neologisms. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't? Seriously? Really? None at all? -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Humus sapiens says that Wikipedia doesn't have articles on neologisms, yet "Category:Neologisms" is alive and very well stocked; in fact, there are about 150 words in that category (not to mention "Category:Portmanteaus," "Category:Slang," among others) and I just added that category to this article. Echoing User:Weirdoactor, just a brief look around Wikipedia and one finds such words as Tillmonkey, Yak shaving, Kripkenstein, Cosmocrat, and Fraudience, among MANY others -- these pages are in existence and are not disputed (and are not as notable and/or widespread as Jewdar), the only sources supporting most of those articles being the Urban Dictionary and various informal blogs. In fact, some of those articles don't even have sources and yet no one disputes their existence, while this article has at last count 12 sources (including the Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, The New York Press, salon.com, etc).


 * At base this is an issue of what is and is not considered 'JC' by the people (overwhelmingly Jews) that create, expand, and upkeep articles dealing with Jews, Judaism, and Jewish issues -- there are certain people here that let their own personal views of Jewish issues cloud their judgment when it comes to keeping a NPOV in regards to Jewish-themed articles and vehemently (nay: FANATICALLY) oppose anything that is not entirely squeaky clean and 'JC.' This is obviously what is happening here. --172.132.170.249 05:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that other articles exist is not a reason for keeping this one. WarpstarRider 09:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you neglected to read the info-box at the top of that page -- I quote: "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline." The part about "not being a policy or guideline" is, as you know, quite important, so I'm not why you would try to present it here as binding Wikipedia protocol. Finally, I would just like to say that the continued irrationality and blatant POV with which this article deletion (or 'vote') is pursued only reveals the true motivations of the people advocating for its deletion. --172.135.86.62 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Velvet elvis and others. 6SJ7 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article, with the new material, convinces me of its relevance and notability. The basic cultural question is, Who is a Jew? There is no really quick answer, although I guess a lot of folks would differ with that assertion.  Writing about Jewdar is uncomfortable but it makes the point that on the one hand you have a complicated definition with a lot of nuances and debate and angst, but, cutting through that, there are many people who simply know whether or not someone is Jewish--and they really do, there is a set of signals.  It would never fly but Who is a Jew? should link to this article. It shouldn't be dismissed as a joke; it reveals an uncomfortable truth. Darkspots 01:03, 10 January 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.