Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaiology


 * 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. Consensus is the term is not yet notable TravellingCari  21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Judaiology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

'Note: the author has moved the page being discussed to Judaeology. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)'

I don't think the term "Judaiology" exists. Google returns no hits. Even if it did, that spelling is unlikely because there is no reason for the "i"; it would be Judeology or Judaeology, though those words don't appear to exist either. The article gives no references that confirm the existence of this term. Given "The canon of Judaiology is open, that is to say, the source material can constantly be added to or updated by the group or individual. Material can be derived from other Jewish sources or even non-jewish sources, such as the Sufism of Islam or the Yoga of Hinduism.", which makes this sound like Wiki-Judaism, I think it's a hoax. Largo Plazo (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whatever this is, it doesn't appear to be notable enough to have been discussed anywhere else I can find. Note that after the first three paragraphs, this article appears to have been copied directly from the Judaism article. As far as I can tell, no sources have been provided that specifically discuss "Judaiology". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I note that the article has been moved to Judaeology, but that concept, in the form described by User:Smfield, has not received enough acknowledgement in reliable sources to warrant an article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete noting above concerns - especially redundancy with other articles. Even if this is a legit topic, the amount of redundancy would seem to indicate that it should exist as a section of an existing article on Judaism.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the purpose of clarity, I've removed the content which was directly copied from Judaism (everything past the lede). What appears to remain is a convoluted claim that there's a philosophical/ethical movement called "Judaiology" which is somehow distinct from Judaism. The fact that no references appear to exist suggests that the movement has yet to gain any recognition. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while I'm at it: Zero google hits for "Rabbi Shalom ben Rubin", the alleged founder of this movement. Not that I really expected otherwise... Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Save. You guys are good. What do you do, stay up all night to find wiki trash? Don't you think there should be something called Judaiology/Judaeology? User:Smfield
 * Do you mean, do we think there should be an article on it? No, not if there's no such thing. Do you mean, it's a cool word, someone should invent a concept to apply it to? That's a strange notion, and in any event is unrelated to whether there should be an article by that title on Wikipedia. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, sometimes the potential for a concept is encased in nothing more then a work. That word in itself can infer meaning, as perceived by the reader, by its structure and place. Just by my wanting this term and concept to exist it now does. User:Smfield —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC).
 * In other words, you made it up. See the article WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't everything "made..up"? Your arrogance exudes like dripping sweat falling from ever word you write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smfield (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on your remark, I conclude that either you haven't read the article to which I drew your attention, or you believe that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can be ignored if you don't like them, which would be a truly arrogant attitude. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In all fairness to the author, "judaeology" appears to be a not-very-often used translation of the German word "Judentums", which does get a lot of hits. Whether this article is related at all to Wissenschaft des Judentums isn't something I'm going to worry about, so no vote on keep or delete.  Perhaps this is a candidate for merger. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The only (mildly) informative link returned by Google for "Judaeology" mentioned this, and indicated that it was something entirely different from the meaning that this article's author invented for it. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at the German Wikipedia article on de:Judentum, it's clear that the word is the equivalent of "Judaism" (and the transwiki link on that page to English Wikipedia leads to the Judaism article). So I think that translations of "Judentum" as "Judaeology" are just poor translations, not an indication of the existence of a concept distinct from Judaism. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete but not speedy. I am reluctant to speedy articles on this subject during a major Jewish holiday, when many knowledgeable editors will be away from WP. Having made up a word in good faith & thinking it belongs here is not vandalism. Looking at the articles, it's a very trivial naive article on Judaism, very far from the Germanic scholarship of Wissenschaft des Judentums. I don't see anything possibly worth merging.  DGG (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, OK, on second thought I'll delete the speedy, because on reflection sometimes I think I'm overly impatient about getting nonsense off the board. Not because of the holidays, though, since you don't need to be Jewish to know that this article is off the wall. Oh, OK, I the speedy tag has been removed already. &#8212;Largo Plazo (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless (1) the title can be shown to be a plausible calque of a current term in one or more other languages; (2) the material can be linked to sources employing the term in the appropriate language; and (3) the material expresses enough distinctive concepts that are not already found in Judaism or Judaica. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While a fascinating bit of original research to read, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Themfromspace (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MADEUP. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. -- M P er el 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly a neologism. no sources.  Jon513 (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this violation of WP:NEO; WP:NOR; WP:NOTOPINION; WP:MADEUP and probably even WP:HOAX. Even the few so-called references don't say anything about this fantastical term. IZAK (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2008 (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.