Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V'Imru


 * 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 Merge to Amen. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:02Z 

V'Imru

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Word from the Hebrew prayers, generally prompting the community to respond Amen. Was listed for PROD but notice was removed. Hence listing here. I'd say delete; we're not a Hebrew dictionary. Alternatively, Amen or Kaddish would be good recipients for a merge & redirect. JFW | T@lk  10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 10:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply not notable. Even if this were an encyclopedia of Jewish liturgical terminology, I'd tag it for deletion. Amen - notable. This ain't. --Dweller 11:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non notable.  S.D.  13:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Amen or Kaddish per nom. Agree not independently notable. --Shirahadasha 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally silly. It's word. Don't merge. This is completely unencyclopedic. - NYC JD (make a motion) 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete What is next "Es"?!?! Avi 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Amen (info in that article already contains enough mention of it). -- M P er el ( talk 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to either Kaddish prayers or Amen in Judaism (to be charitable), but Wikipedia has long-ago decided not to have entire articles for Bible-verses, so it makes no sense to have articles for single words plucked randomly out of entire prayers. By the way, the way this article is presented is very faulty, which is why it will probably get deleted since it makes no sense to present half a function or activity, or in this case, a single ancillary word, and then procced to "explain" it. A word cannot be grasped in mid-air and flung at the reader. It must be presented with its related words and in a context that makes rational sense and then (perhaps) worthy of an article. IZAK 10:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would therefore vote redirect. I feel it is an important artlce on its own, but the concencus seems to be otherwise, moving this to Amen then would make more sense Epson291 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into, and redirect to Amen, à l'IZAK. Tom e rtalk 01:35, 7 March 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.