Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish fundamentalism


 * 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   keep. The argument that paper ancyclopedia's have an article on this subject is sufficiently compelling to blow the delete arguments out of the water but I strongly suggest that someone stubifies this and starts over Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jewish fundamentalism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There isn't a single source in the article. This was noted a year ago and has not been changed. The concept is highly subjective.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —Lisa (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article does cite three sources, although they are not in-line and in my view only one of them is both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. As currently constituted, this article is very heavy on original research and reads like an essay.  But there probably is a valid topic here, albeit difficult to get one's hands around because of the potentially imprecise (and contentious) meaning of "fundamentalism."  The phrase "Jewish fundamentalism" turns up 671 hits on Google Books and 765 on Google Scholar (there's considerable overlap between these, of course).--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lean Delete - The article introduces two definitions of fundamentalism and fails to even clarify which one it is describing (I presume the second). Over half of it reads like shallow comparison between the Reform/Conservative sects and the Orthodox/Haredi sects, but without good references it mostly boils down to a lot of original research and weasel words.  If this was the first time the problems were noted, I'd lean towards keeping and waiting for better references, but this page has been in a sorry state for over a year and none of the problems have been fixed (and I suspect most of them are unfixable: too much opinion, too much intrinsically POV subject matter). --ShadowRanger (talk 16:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Current content is hodgepodge of personal opinion. No academic work cited, could be recreated with suitable content but current page is beyond hope. JFW | T@lk  23:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:POV. per ShadowRanger -> Simple background for the article is not clear. The term 'Fundamentalism' has been rarely used with Judaism in an academic sense. If it is just a connotation for extremism, than maybe an article could be put together, but certainly not this sub-level piece. One sided assumption that the article is about religious extremism, yet the same might be said about other brnads of Judaism of the Progressive Judaism stream, certainly Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism are extremists as well on their side of the platform (lady arrested this morning at the Western Wall for wearing a talit and attempting to read from a Torah). 'Fundamentalism' might seem to infer an adoption of violent means, and the maybe you would have to include the Zionist underground groups before 1948. --Shuki (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The points raised above are compelling justifications for significant editorial changes to the article, but the topic itself is certainly notable and there are reliable sources available for improving the article. The subject has been the topic of considerable scholarship, and Google Books and Google Scholar bring up lots of reliable sources.  Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on Jewish Fundamentalism, so it seems very odd that Wikipedia would not, as the topic itself is suitable for an encyclopedia entry.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If there's something to be written on this topic, someone can create that article when they feel like it. But we don't need to keep an article just because it's suitable for an encyclopedia entry.  This is an essay.  A blog post.  We can delete it without prejudice to the topic. - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete only one source seems reliable, and even that one is not used with inline citation. The article seems to be a bunch of OR and written like an essay. This is not to say that an article on this topic cannot be recreated if done properly, but the present article does not hold up to WP policy. Shlomke (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment yes, only one source is reliable, but its an academic paper, so its use may be a form of synthesis itself. the article as it exists is not salvageable. the term has some significant usage. i would support reducing it to a stub, if someone can find a reliable third party source that shows the common use/definition of this phrase. i note that the islamic and hindu fundi articles are welll defined and npov, but the christian is problematic, so maybe someone could see if there is a parallel npov def along the lines of those 2 articles. google search lists wp as the first hit, which is not good considering its quality, the academic paper as third, also not good, and a nation article which of course is pov. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The topic is notable and there are available references meeting Wikipedia standards for sources. The need for more references and quality contributions to this page is already posted and does not justify deletion. Lady Farmer (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Jewish schisms as a sub-topic to give the subject greater accurate context within the over-all structure of Jewish life and religious observance or lack thereof. For example, Kahanism became a movement that was marginalized and banned. The vast majority of Jews officially oppose "fundamentalism" of any sort, and certainly do not class themselves as any sort of "fundamentalist" which is a pejorative term. IZAK (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2009 (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.