Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos goy


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Shabbos goy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:N. This is not an official concept in Judaism, rather just a term for something some Jewish people do on Shabbat. The term itself is relatively offensive, and may fail WP:NPOV. On top of this, the article is poorly written, and lacks quality references.  Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  20:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  Puzzledvegetable  Is it teatime already?  20:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Retain. Which means either keep, or perhaps merge into Activities prohibited on Shabbat with a section redirect, doesn't make a big difference which. This phenomenon is notable and noteworthy due to the manner in which it proliferates, socially. It perhaps being offensive —why?— should not be a factor, at any case. Article could for sure be improved (and I encourage participants here to do so) but I do not find its quality is to be so low that it needs to be deleted. El_C 20:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, the word goy tends to be used by people stereotyping Jews, in offensive sentences like "Oy vey, the goyim are here." -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  20:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * People say "Oy vey, the Jews are here." but we still have an article at Jews, not that I'm saying Shabbos Goy is negative, it's not the same thing as calling someone a goy, as I'm sure you are aware. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the delete rationales offered so far look pretty weak. This does not need to be an official concept; there is nothing non-neutral about the tone; and at least some of the refs suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you like a University of California, Berkeley, professor of anthropology,, as a quality source? Is the fact that it is in another encyclopaedia, , convincing that it is encyclopaedic?
 * Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep the subject itself is notable. It's not controversial nor offensive and I have no idea why it's NPOV. If it's poorly written, it can be fixed up. It's referenced, and it's clear that it's notable and worthy. When Colin Powell, for example, or Elvis, can talk about their days as being a Shabbos goy then it makes sense to have a separate article and not part of a larger Activities prohibited on Shabbat. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment the delete rationales offered so far look pretty weak. This does not need to be an official concept; there is nothing non-neutral about the tone; and at least some of the refs suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Is part of a series of articles about Shabbat. The term has been in use for ages, and is well-known and notable. Even if it were a pejorative, that is no reason to delete the article, see Zhyd. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment/merge. 7 of the 9 12 sources on this page are simply references for "[famous person] was a Shabbos goy!". While cleanup would fix that issue, and poorly-written articles don't necessarily merit deletion, this /does/ go to show that that the concept of 'Shabbos goy' may not merit a page unto itself. The concept clearly exists, but I don't know if the page needs to. I'm leaning towards merging this content into Activities prohibited on Shabbat. Gilded Snail (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You missed the two sources in the references section. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. There's 3 more that aren't famous-person-related. Thanks. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You missed the two sources in the references section. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. There's 3 more that aren't famous-person-related. Thanks. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment solid ref here: Alan Dundes (2002-01-21). The Shabbat Elevator and other Sabbath Subterfuges: An Unorthodox Essay on Circumventing Custom and Jewish Character. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4616-4560-3 as well as an entry in Ronald L. Eisenberg (2011-12-01). Dictionary of Jewish Terms: A Guide to the Language of Judaism. Taylor Trade Publications. pp. 368–. ISBN 978-1-58979-729-1
 * MergeI agree with the proposal to merge into Activities prohibited on Shabbat from Gilded Snail. Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into Activities prohibited on Shabbat. Yes,, calling non-Jews "a bunch of goyim" is derogatory, but "Shabbos goy" is a specific role played by non-Jews and is not meant to be derogatory at all. Harry S. Truman spoke fondly of his experience being a Shabbos goy when he was a youth, and many Shabbos goys know more about the laws of Shabbat than Jews because they are called on to do prohibited activities. Shabbos goys are also paid for their services when they come to flick on a light switch in a dark children's room, or turn off the gas that's been left on. The presentation needs to be improved, not deleted. Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is encyclopedic and richly integrated into Wikipedia in the form of links to other articles. The "Shabbes Goy": A Study in Halakhic Flexibility is just one book-length work on the topic, which appears widely in sources available to be added as references. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Opposed to merge (as the goy workaround is distinct from activities prohibited). While not "official", this is a quasi-official workaround or hack to the Shabbat code (and people were (and in a limited capacity still are) employed for pay to do this... Of course the pay was, pro forma, for something else). This is not particularly offensive. Widely discussed in sources and clearly meets GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is notable, many reliable sources discuss it (some listed above). Could be expanded, but already contains material that would not fit well in any other article. Jayjg (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The term is not offensive and the topic is notable, as shown in the book length coverage cited above. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not a compendium of official concepts of Judaism but a collection of notable topics, which this one clearly is. Can be expanded to include anecdotes about some of the famous Shabbos goys. Agree with Jayjg that it doesn't fit anywhere else (similar to paperboy not belonging in newspaper), and with El C and Debresser who stated that whether it is pejorative or not (it's not) isn't relevant. Havradim (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. (But if somehow the final decision is otherwise, then content must be merged into Activities prohibited on Shabbat, and not just deleted.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading the discussion above, it is clear that consensus disagrees with me. I simply wish to point out one thing. The only part of this article with quality references is the one sentence in the end that would probably be removed if the article was cleaned up. The actual article itself, the part that defines the concept, has only two references, both of which are non-scholarly. One is from dailyhalacha.com which I can't even get to open on my browser without a "runtime error" and another from chabad.com, which ironically enough is about why most people are in fact incorrect in using a "Shabbos goy". -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  18:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC) + edit
 * This article should be fairly easy to find additional sources for. So it needs to be improved. That is no reason to delete it, when the subject is notable and can be sourced better. Debresser (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is below standard now but there is no reason it can't become a good article. I disagree with merge proposals. Zerotalk 17:37, 6 August 2019 (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.