Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App


 * 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. Secret account 15:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Shabbos App

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violation of WP:SPIP -- article created by app's developers. Just a Kickstarter campaign for now. Amazins490 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Selective merge. I agree that the current version of this article is unacceptably promotional, and that currently there's insufficient content to justify a separate article about this app.  However, given the existence of some actual coverage in reliable sources, notably this article in Ha'aretz, some limited non-promotional content about this could benefit our general coverage on the subject of Shabbat and technology--most probably by adding to the existing article Sabbath mode, or maybe Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Selective merge under Shabbat and technology might be a good idea. But the project is little more then an inactive Kickstarter project. There's not much to merge sans promotional content so deletion under WP:SPIP is a good idea. HaGingi (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — HaGingi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep but de-commercialize to meet WP requirements and standards. Otherwise, the article is an informative and encyclopedic entry that cites sufficient WP:V & WP:RS satisfying WP:N. The article is easily part of Category:Judaism software, no different to Category:Christian software & Category:Islamic software, that are all sub-categories of Category:Religious software‎. The article is a welcome addition to similarly innovative phenomena as can be seen in Category:Shabbat innovations. Also, please consider WP:CHANCE & WP:DONOTDEMOLISH Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for coverage of Category:Judaism software, but the problem here, as the nominator noted, is that this app doesn't actually exist yet. So, is it notable enough as a proposal already to qualify for an article?  WP:CRYSTAL#5 may be instructive here: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your observations are important, however, in this case this App is part of a bigger subject, the use of cell-phones and texting on Shabbat and Jewish holidays (supposed to be days of "rest" according to strict Jewish law) by growing numbers of supposedly Sabbath-observant young Jews and in that context both the need for and buzz about a Shabbos AP is very much "where the money is" as both a solution to the "problem" and innovation in Jewish law that would permit it. The fact that it has already been reported and discussed in mainstream Jewish media and on the social circuit boards makes it notable. It's not just about a "product" it's also about the Jewish Sabbath, how it's "kept" or "desecrated" depending on the POV, to some it is a "violation" and "abomination" while to others it is a "salvation" and "permission", so it's more complex than just a mere widget being proposed as it goes hand in hand with broader societal trends and theological disputes. Thank, IZAK (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTE: The article has now been WP:WIKIFIED and been WP:NPOVed. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 17:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for now - looks like a hoax, and at the very least, doesn't actually exist yet. - Epson291 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a credible rationale for a !vote. It's clearly not a hoax. See the Haaretz article, for example. Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no proof in that article that the app is real in any capacity. - Epson291 (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire article, from an RS, is about what the RS refers to as a development state app -- that's inconsistent with your suggestion that it is a hoax. Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * HaAretz literally just pulled the lines off the Kickstarter page. Which means HaAretz' RS was Kickstarter, which was written by them... Full circle. Is there any proof this app exists or is in development, demo videos, face interviews with the developers? An actual development company? Nope. Just a Kickstarter page that the Jewish news websites have all quoted (and bringing lots of page views to the article I might add) - Epson291 (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As an RS, it has a reputation for fact-checking. That's what we rely on. Not an editor's personal musing that perhaps the RSs didn't fact-check, and have been hoodwinked by a hoax. Of course, we have editors who think that all sorts of things, including Obama's place of birth, are hoaxes ... but we go with the RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reread the article. The article is clear they didn't fact check themselves by their own admission, they are quoting what the developers said to Vosizneias as well as quoting the Kickstarter. Vosizneias is not a reliable source (and that site is run completely anonymously, hardly a RS). - Epson291 (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. All the above !votes were made before a slew of new refs were added to the article, all focused completely on this app. Included in the article now are refs reflecting RS articles devoted to coverage of this app in Popular Mechanics, Haaretz, Ynet, Arutz Sheva, The Times of Israel, Israel National News, The Jewish Daily Forward, The Jewish Week, and Jewish Business News. This topic, without question, now meets GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete with extreme prejudice. It isn't exactly a hoax, but it is a fringe piece of nuttiness, and the guy pushing it is doing anything he can to drum up publicity.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for this purpose.  It was created by a single issue account, and in addition to deletion of this account, I think that account should be banned.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition, I think that User:Petertrd and User:Yossigoldstein are probably one and the same. Both appeared at the same time, and both have been single article editors.  Both accounts should be banned.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If an article meets GNG -- as this one indubitably does -- it meets our notability criteria. Notwithstanding individual editor POV, that it is "nuttiness." For truly nutty subjects, see Category:Conspiracy theories by subject ... all nutty subjects that Wikipedia covers.
 * As to your suggestion vis-a-vis weighing contributions of editors on the basis of the number of edits they have made, that would be OK ... we might weigh most those !votes here by !voters with over 5,000 edits, for example ... but I don't think it's necessary. And of course of the !voters here, it would only exclude you, and a merge !vote. If you have an issue not with a !voter, but with an author of the article, this is not the forum for that discussion. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you keep putting an exclamation point before the word "vote". In any case, my point stands.  We don't start including things like this a couple of weeks after they appear, and most certainly not when the driving force adding them to Wikipedia are clearly two sockpuppets being operated by a person or persons with a definite conflict of interest.  And I'm not talking about a small number of edits; I'm talking about single purpose accounts that are almost certain sockpuppets.  Pretending that I'm talking about absolute number of edits strains the bounds of what can be assumed to be good faith.


 * These were accounts created for the sole purpose of creating and furthering this article as part of the PR blitz they've been engaging in for the past week or two. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I added most of the RS refs. And I'm not a sockpuppet.


 * And we do most certainly cover articles that meet GNG, even if one editor (without proving it via a sockpuppet investigation) avers that an SPA had a hand in article creation. Your assertion is simply not correct.


 * And we write !vote because it is not a vote.


 * In short -- many RSs have devoted full-length articles to the topic, and it meets GNG. That outweighs (by far) your personal assertions, unsupported by any finding via a sockpuppet investigation, and even if there were a sock we would still weigh -- regardless -- whether this article is substantially covered by RSs.  Which it clearly is.


 * (BTW, most of that coverage is during the time the two new editors "appeared" -- we do see that sometimes with newly hot topics; if you you have a suspicion you wish to pursue bring it to a sockpuppet investigation, rather than here). --Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no question that those two accounts are SPAs. Just look at their contribution lists.  The article's creator has a total of 5 edits, the first of which being the creation of the article, and all of which being on that article.  The other account has about a dozen and a half edits, all but one of which are on this article, and the one outlier being a blurb on another article talking about this one, which was promptly deleted there.  Why don't you take a look yourself.  There is no app.  There is nothing but an empty PR campaign, and you are facilitating the use of Wikipedia to further that campaign.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You might be more credible if you were to not use hyperbole. Such as "we don't" (when we do). And "there is no question" (when there is indeed a question). You may be correct.  But you may be incorrect.  There in fact is a question.  You have failed to bring it to the appropriate noticeboard, and obtain a finding that supports your personal musing. Which you present as fact. And, as already mentioned, there has been a flurry of RS coverage of this in the past two weeks.  Flurries of coverage of new topics do often yield new editors, whose first edits focus on the new topic. And -- you ignore this, again -- these aren't editors who have even !voted in this AfD that you are complaining about! Simply editors who have contributed to the article. If the article is -- as here -- supported by nearly a dozen RS articles fully devoted to the topic, we would not delete the article just because possibly two editors who contributed to the article are the same person. What we unquestionably have is heavy RS coverage, in at least two countries on different continents, that meets GNG -- where that is the case, GNG results in a keep, because unproven editor musing that two contributing editors are SPAs or have COIs is frankly immaterial if the article is .... for lack of a better phrase ... otherwise "kosher." --Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you say there's a question of whether the two accounts are SPAs? They are by definition.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you say it is - if the case - relevant to an AfD? In light of the fact there are RS refs from nearly a dozen different publications on two continents, devoted to the topic of this article ... which ticks off the "meets GNG" box? Where do you see it written that under these circumstances, even if two editors who contributed to the article were SPAs (though the editor who contributed the most RSs to this article wasn't an SPA), the article somehow fails our notability criteria? Where do you see it written that an article that meets GNG should be deleted, because two editors who didn't even !vote at the AfD are focused primarily in their to-date editing, on that article, which is breaking news? Are you making up these "rules?" Please ... don't try to sell your personal opinion of what you would like our rules to be, as though they were in fact wp's rules. Someone might be misled. Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The most interesting question to me in this WP:AfD is what "promotion" means. Does anyone think a Rabbinical authority is likely to be influenced by a Wikipedia article to declare this app halachically acceptable? These are religious questions. The last I looked Wikipedia was a secular project. There are religious questions that only an authority conversant in halacha can address. We cannot "promote" the acceptability of this Mobile app. It is impossible. Can someone tell me what else we might be trying to promote by hosting this article on our project? Sources are abundant. This is an interesting question. Is it possible to make cellphone-use halachically-compliant for Jewish-Sabbath use? This is an article on that. There are no shortage of good quality sources weighing in on this. Most or all are doubtful that there is any way of getting around the several reasons that cellphone use would be prohibited for observant Jews on the Sabbath. But the discussion is taking place in many reliable sources. Wouldn't that give us the green light to proceed with an article on the subject? Bus stop (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's promotion because the two accounts which created and made the first edits on it were created for the sole purpose of this article, and have done nothing on Wikipedia but push this article. We should not have an article on the subject, because that's allowing Wikipedia to be used as an advertising forum.  If and when such an app is actually made and released, it might be worthy of an article.  Right now, it's nothing more than a controversial meme.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Advertising for what? Advertising for circumventing well-established halacha which would prohibit the use of cellphones by observant Jews on the Sabbath? The sourcing for such a Mobile app is staggering. This is not a subject that has been ignored by high profile journalistic outlets. Please note: not one of the many sources discussing this app considers this app compliant with the halachic opinions of any rabbinical authorities that may weigh in on the subject. Then why is this app being discussed by so many sources? Quite frankly I don't know the answer to the question I just posed. My concern here is that a valid topic may be shunted aside in this AfD. Is my primary concern the editors that created this article? No, I don't think so. I am remaining focussed on the sourcing for the subject. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that a notable topic is implicated here. But I think the appropriate topic is really Smartphones and Shabbat, either on its own or as a subsection of one of the broader articles I mentioned above. The Haaretz article and other reliable sources cited here are relevant to that broader topic. It's just not apparent, to me, that we should currently have an article named after, and focused on, this particular proposed app, especially since that app may turn out to be—well, I wouldn't say "hoax" or "fringe", based on the existing sources, but those same sources suggest that the "Shabbos App" might end up as "vaporware".  Instead of a particular product, I think the article should focus on the halacha and practical issues. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your line of reasoning seems very sound and productive, and indeed fitting this article into a broader one about modern digital Smartphones and Shabbat as you suggest makes very good sense, especially considering that the use of old-fashioned "regular" landline phones by Jewish Shabbat-observant doctors and emergency workers and organizations is an established fact and has been in use for decades, see Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law. I also agree with User that at this time the focus of this discussion should be on the article's contents and avoid focusing on possible problems about who the creator of it is because many banned and problematic users have contributed positively to WP regardless of their fate and end due to problematic behaviors that got them into potential trouble. Running afoul of WP:CHECKUSER does not automatically lead to eradication of a blocked user's contributions that remain the property of WP and such articles are then dealt with on their own merits or demerits based on their content. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We follow the RSs. The focus of the nearly a dozen RS articles devoted to this topic are all about the app -- simply look at the titles of the articles.  They do, of course, discuss at length the issue the app is meant to address ... that being "Smartphones and Shabbat" ... but they clearly have as their initial and central focus the app.  Indeed, but for the app, it does not appear that there is much RS discussion of the subject. Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It may be a fringe piece of nuttiness, but it is so remarkable such that it has attracted published comment from reliable but very different sources.   DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As the article currently stands, the sources establish notability. The question is not what editors think of the topic, but are reliable sources covering the subject, and in this case they are and doing so in depth. Alansohn (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as Alansohn explained. --Yoavd (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The article as it now stands is very different in size to what it was like at the start of this AfD. I think that almost all the content that justified its existence has gone. The deleted content (deleted a OR) contained explanations of the apps functions. Now, about all that is left are lot general opinions of Jewish religious law about the use of smartphones on the Sabbath. Very little in the article is specific to the subject of the article. If that deleted content is gone for good, could not all that remains be merged into a general article about Jewish religious law regarding the Sabbath and how it affects the use of everyday objects and activities? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Until a third party actually comments or reviews the app as a functional piece of software that exists, rather than just having sources detailing theoretical/religious objections about whether the proposed features of this proposed program breaks or successfully works around religious laws, I don't think there is enough to indicate notability. At the very least this article is too soon. There is no significant coverage of the app as an actual app (and how could there be, since it seems it does not exist yet as a working piece of software for people to buy and use). This edit removed almost all the content dealing with the features of the proposed app: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shabbos_App&diff=629387632&oldid=629368154 - but it was right to remove it because none of it was sourced. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:GNG
Epeefleche has made the claim, several times, that this article conforms to Wikipedia's policy on general notability. I would like to challenge that claim, particularly seeing as how that is the only basis that's been presented for including this article in Wikipedia.

The definition of the guideline in question is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And "presume" in this case is further explained as follows:

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

And here is where this article fails GNG. Under what Wikipedia is not, policy includes the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. As has been pointed out before, this article was created by User:Petertrd on October 1, 2014. You can view all 5 of this user's edits here. This is the definition of a single purpose account. Other than an IP edit or two (mostly reverted), the next dozen and a half edits were all made by User:Yossigoldstein, whose full list of contributions can be viewed here. As you can see, this editor as well has never edited an article other than this one (except for a blurb about this one in the article on Sabbath mode).

Up until this point, the article is nothing more than an advertisement for the so-called "shabbos app".

From this point forward, users Epeefleche and IZAK have added material. But does that material meet Wikipedia guidelines? In fact, not a single source cited reports anything other than (1) the claims made by the creators of the app and (2) the controversy surrounding the claims made by the creators of the app, and objections to those claims.

In point of fact, every single piece of information about the app itself comes either from the inventors' websites or articles which quote the inventors' websites. Not one single piece of independent information exists about the app, and not one single source added to this article provides any independent information about the app either (which is virtually a tautology, since no such information exists).

There was a section in this article which made a case for the app. I deleted that, because it was, of course, unsourced other than the inventors' sites, which are inadmissible by Wikipedia policy. There are currently 24 sources referenced in this article. If Epeefleche, or other editors, insist on it, I will go through them one by one and show that what I am saying is the case. I would hope that such a waste of time would be unnecessary, but I am willing to do so if necessary.

So I'm addressing this to everyone who has so far voted to keep this article, and asking that you revisit your conclusion and change your vote, since almost all of them are based on the claim of general notability, which according to Wikipedia's definition of that concept has not been met. Perhaps there is room for a section on this app in a broader article on Controversies in Jewish law and technology, but until there are reliable sources about the app and not merely about the controversy surrounding claims about the app, there is nothing to see here. The app itself, assuming that it even exists, fails the general notability guidelines on Wikipedia. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The topic is the app. Included in that topic is the controversy.  We have nearly a dozen RSs, from two different continents, writing articles devoted to the app.  This is what GNG is referring to when it speaks of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." GNG is -- of course -- the primary test that we look to to determine whether a topic is notable. What Lisa says above she has said before.  Perhaps it is time for her to stop beating a dead horse. Her focus on her concerns that two non-!voting editors have started with their initial edits on this article (we all started with our initial edits on some article) is a red herring, as discussed above.  Really, this continues to simply be a rehash of the above, and to that extent a waste of everyone's time. Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - the topic is the app. But the app does not exist! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the app does not exist. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith on the part of Epeefleche when I see spurious and devious statements like "we all started with our initial edits on some article".  We did not all start with our initial edits creating a new article.  This is not a red herring.  Furthermore, I repeat that there is no reliable source for anything about the app other than what its "creators" have claimed.  No one has seen this app.  It's a story about an app, rather than an actual app.


 * Since you have chosen to repeat your inaccurate claim that there are reliable sources for this app, I'm going to take that to mean that I will have to go through each source and explain why it is not valid for determining general notability. Thanks for wasting my time.  BRB.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't need members of the New World Order showing up in their black helicopters and performing cattle mutilation at Area 51 to have articles about these concepts. I doubt the existence of extraterrestrial life (or of military intelligence), but the reliable and verifiable sources about all of these subjects is what makes these topics notable. The reliable and verifiable sources regarding the proposed app and its implications surpass the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If I claim to have invented a time travel machine (worked out on paper only - I've not actually built it) and I send the specs to noted scientists for comments, and they all reply that it won't work and is useless, can we still have a Wikipedia article just about my soon-to-be-released device that enables its users to travel through time? That, essentially, is what is happening in this article. But we could have an article about the concepts behind time travel, and their place in literature. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean something like cold fusion? The standard is not whether it works as described, the question is coverage in reliable sources. The Shabbos App meets that standard, while your time travel machine doesn't. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bad analogy. There are papers about fusion.  This is one or two guys making claims that haven't been substantiated by anyone. And again, all the reliable sources say is that there are these guys making this claim.  This would be like me claiming I'd achieved cold fusion, putting it on my website, and then contacting every website I know of to tell them about it.  A bunch of them will run a blurb about it.  Some will write articles arguing that I'm a damned fool.  But we still wouldn't create an article on Wikipedia called Lisa Liel's nifty new cold fusion thingie.  At the very most, I might get a mention at the end of Cold fusion.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 19:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We should stay on topic. The topic isn't "cold fusion" and the analogy is a poor one. We happen to be in the realm of religion—not science. Nor is the underlying technology in the "Shabbos App" particularly advanced. It is unremarkable. We are only discussing tweaks to normal cellphones that may make them usable on Shabbos. This can be discussed in theory. We do not have to have a workable model to discuss the implications of the minor changes supposedly incorporated into the "Shabbos App" if and when one is produced. Good quality sources do not seem to be troubled by the nonexistence of a working example of a phone operated with an installed "Shabbos App" and nor should we be troubled by the nonexistence of the product. Cellphone use has become a central part of everyday life for many people and that includes observant Jews. This is an issue that has received widespread coverage in many good quality sources. That is the essential requirement for an article on Wikipedia. There are various facets of the coverage of the "Shabbos App" found in good quality sources. It is a nonexistent Mobile app that has caused a lot of discussion in many good quality sources. This article can be approached from a variety of perspectives. It can be limited by links to articles that expand on difficult-to-understand concepts of a religious nature. But even as a stub it certainly has validity as a freestanding entity. The "Shabbos App" is a seminal invention attempting to accommodate otherwise irreconcilable requirements in religious and secular realms concerning Orthodox Jews. Notice the following: “A lot of people are stuck in an old-fashioned mentality, that what was is what will always be,” Goldstein told The Times of Israel in an exclusive interview. “There are plenty of other technology-oriented devices out there that allow users to perform functions that most people think are ‘assur’ — forbidden — but are really ‘mutar’ — permissible.” This could well be worked into this article. Don't forget that we are not taking sides in any ensuing debate. In the instance of this article WP:NPOV means striking a reasonable balance, in accordance the sources available to us, between those who advocate for the halachic validity of the app and those who denounce the app as hopelessly inadequate to the task of overcoming the various objections, from a religious point of view, of general, non-emergency, use of cellphones on Shabbos. Bus stop (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In order to speed up my analysis of the sources, I'm going to remove those that are merely blog posts. Blog posts are not reliable sources. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just... wow.  So many blog posts.  So many duplicates.  There are 18 sources left as citations.  Of these, 6 are from halachipedia, which is an openly edited wiki.  As such, I don't see that it's any more a reliable source than Wikipedia itself, which is explicitly not a reliable source, by Wikipedia policy.  The remaining 12 sources are sketchy at best, but I'll put together an explanation of each of them.  I will note, however, just for starters, that several of these articles list Yossi Goldstein as the app's developer.  That's the same Yossi Goldstein who created this article in the first place, violating Wikipedia's rules about conflicts of interest.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete according to Lisa's commentary Tuscantreat (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

— Tuscantreat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Epeefleche, you are quite the hypocrite. The article was created by a SPA.  The initial edits were made by an SPA.  Yet another SPA (the second one that's clearly identifiable as one of the developers on this project) just joined Wikipedia and made four or five more edits to this article.  And you labeled Tuscantreat as an SPA when anyone who bothers to look at his contributions can see that this is far from the only article he has edited.  I'm beginning to wonder if you have some sort of vested interest in this article.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly desist with the personal attacks. The SPA editors who are !voting are SPAs, and are tagged as such.  We don't tag non-!voting editors.  You are pointing to editors who are not !voting. This point has been made to you above; I'm not sure why you do not apprehend the difference.  And, of course, you are pointing to editors whose edits have been modified by subsequent editing by others. And, as has been clearly pointed out to you above, you have not indicated where under wp guidelines it is at all relevant to this AfD what the editing history of  editors who are not !voting in this AfD has. Because, there is no such relevance. On the other hand, it is relevant to this AfD if !voters at this AfD are SPAs. The closer will determine what level of weight to give their !votes, with that information. Please take this as a warning not to engage in further ad hominem attacks on editors. Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2014 (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.