Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Source Judaism


 * 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. Sandstein 17:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Open Source Judaism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, no references, link spam. PEAR (talk) 12:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * note: above user has been indefinitely blocked


 * Weak keep, not my area of expertise, but there seems to have been at least one book written on the subject (Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism), and several webpages. Perhaps merge into Open source religion instead? --kateshortforbob 12:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Uninformative and uninteresting article. Mandsford 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete unless reliable sources are found to attest notability. Found one article, but I'm not certain if it is pertinent to the AFD  Corpx 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be notable on the basis that there was a book written about the subject, the movement has produced a Haggadah, and apparently this movement has inspired other (albeit less focused) activity in the area of open source religion. I don't think that the "merge" suggested by Kateshortforbob is a good option. The Open source religion article is about creating new belief systems ("invent your own religion"), while it seems that Open Source Judaism is about using open collaboration to enhance participants' involvement with an established religious faith. (I have a hunch that if the article were about Open Source Christianity, there would be an uproar against merging it into an article about do-it-yourself religions...)--orlady 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per orlady. Mathmo Talk 01:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep without needing to discuss motivation.DGG (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * by which I mean that the article should be kept based on the sources, and there is no need to consider whether the nomination may have been affected by improper considerations--it is enough to just consider the actual article. ,DGG (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * weak keep per orlady. Terse 14:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as per Corpx Harlowraman 17:03, 15 August 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.