Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 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 delete. I have discarded a number of spa votes and find the arguments for deletion have not been adequately refuted although I will specifically state that there is no bar on creation of a properly sourced NPOV article at the location. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Judaism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, WP:POV & a violation of WP:SYNTH. This is an essay that is structured like an article. Joe407 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy for original author. This is an essay consisting of original research and is promotional for a small Canadian rabbinical school. The references are poor and do not establish notability for this topic. The new editor states that he/ she will be away from Wikipedia for several weeks, and it would take a major re-write to save this, if that was even possible. Cullen328 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be the philosophy of the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School.[1] However, the article does not state the notability of "Classic Judaism", is it an actual movement or is it one Rabbi's analogy? The tone of the article advocates this philosophy without taking a neutral stance. GabrielF (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have a hunch that there is a legitimate encyclopedia article here, although I doubt the title reflects that content. There is clearly Original Essay dreck that needs to go away, such as this howler: When the British Industrial Revolution teamed with the French Enlightenment (today ironically called "Americanism")... Actually, nobody has written on Americanism on WP, believe it or not, so the use of the early-20th Century term in this very strange context is perhaps forgivable, but still... Really?!?! I'll ponder this one for a few days, it's not an easy call in terms of inclusion-worthiness, outside of the fact that the title strikes me as a neologism. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All right, it didn't take a couple days. This is an original essay about what seems to be a "proprietary concept," if I may use anachronistic language to get my point across, fostered by a single rabbinical school. In this I echo Cullen328 above. I think there might be material of worth for an encyclopedic article on the history of Judaism, but most of the good stuff isn't sourced and probably constitutes a content fork anyway. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the article should be userfied rather than annihilated. There remains the potential that there is a substantive article here, but not in this form. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Classic Judaism" is definitely not a term widely used. This seems to be an off shoot of Conservative/Orthodox Judaism related to the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School. There is a Classical Reform Judaism movement, but that it is completely different from what this article is. Additionally, Much of the content in the article is covered, or should be covered, on already existing pages. The "history" section, which at the moment is incredibly general, would be better served on the Haskalah article, under a Reactions/Opposition to topic. The "post-enlightenment" and the "Halakha" are covered under Halakha#Views today and, with some variation, on Conservative Halakha. Finally, the "Philosophy and Principle" does seem to be an idea of the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School and should be merged there. The article seems to try and be an overview of conservative/orthodox reactions to the Haskalah movement, but with some promotion of ideas exclusively of the Canadian Yeshiva thrown in. Again, I think that a page of this type can be useful but should be done on the main Haskalah page, as that page itself is in need of expansion and I would encourage the original creator of the article to contribute to that as well. Ravendrop 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a chance: The article as it is currently written is eminently deletable. But it also suggests that Classic Judaism is a religious movement, which might, perhaps, have adherents, and about which, perhaps, scholars have written things. The author is a rank tyro at this encyclopedia-writing business. On his talk page I gave him a few pointers about how to save the article, and I think we should give him a couple of weeks to give it a shot. If there are, in fact, Jewish congregations that adhere to this ideology, and there are published discussions about it as a movement, it is definitely worth saving. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a pretty in depth search and found no mention of a religious movement calling itself "Classic Judaism." As I mentioned above, many of the theological points are similar to certain orthodox/conservative Judaism views of Halakah, but the specific views mentioned in this article seem to be intimately (and from my findings almost exclusively) connected to the Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School. Additionally, I couldn't find any significant discussion of a "Classic Judaism" in scholarly works, and Jewish specific encyclopedias, such as Encyclopaedia Judaica, have not trace of mention of it either. I'm not 100% convinced that an article can't be made out of this, but this is definitely not that article. I !vote for userification and/or merge/expansion as suggested by my previous post. Ravendrop 06:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The concept is original research/synthesis. The OR is used to push a POV. Userfy seems reasonable, but it needs to get out of the main namespace. JFW | T@lk 16:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textKEEPBold text This article. For one, I have been finding in recent years that Orthodoxy has been moving too far to the right; whereas Conservative Judaism has been moving too far to the left. I have finally found a movement that speaks to me. While at the moment, Classic Judaism is a small movement, and just 'starting out', all things MUST start somewhere. As a Masters of Information, I feel that it is necessary to retain'Bold text'this article, as one of the purposes of Wikipedia (& other new media), is so people can create 'on-line' communities to rally around causes or ideas. Thus, Wikipedia should provide some time for this article to be posted, to see if it 'catches on'. Hence, This concept is still in its incubation stage, and is thus too premature to be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baruchhakoen (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy page WP:CBALL. Wikipedia documents what exists, it's goal is not to create. If anything, Baruchhakoen puts forth an unintentional argument for deletion or userfy. Joe407 (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I also find that this speaks to me. Modern Orthodox Judaism has become entrenched in the past and its own version of the law, and Conservative Judaism does not always place an appropriate emphasis on Halacha. I always find myself trying to explain to people where I find myself on the spectrum of Jewish observance, and Classic Judaism is a term that works perfectly, as espoused by this article. Judging from people to whom I have spoken, there are many people like me. We are an existing movement, in search of a home like this. Beverlee Rapp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.52.182 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Classic Judaism is a descriptor for an increasing number of traditional Conservative Jews and left-wing Modern Orthodox Jews feeling alienated by new developments in both their movements. These movements are very recent: all within the last decade. As such, the scholarly literature on this topic is just developing, though a monograph literature is rapidly developing--best example being Samuel Heilman. Sliding to the Right: the contest for the Future of American Jewish Orthodoxy, U Cal Press, 2006, to cite but one example. The Canadian Yeshiva is among a few educational institutions that are in the forefront of this change, hence the over-reliance on quotes from its website. Certainly the article requires a rewrite and references to sociological sources that reflect the recent trends alluded to in this article are needed. However, to remove it would reduce the currency of Wikipedia for its users as the Masters of Information user so effectively pointed out. I would give the writer--who has been advised of the necessity of this process--a couple of weeks to produce the appropriate article.

"KEEP." It seems that in a way this article is condemning Reform and Orthodox practices. It needs some revising so that it is written like an encyclopedia article, not from as biased a point of view. The article does capture a real phenomenon. Without the other sides' views, it is only opinion. With all the perspectives, though, it gives people an idea of how different denominations of Judaism approached Jewish history. It has some good information, but needs revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.52.182 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs substantial rewrite (it is written in a defensive manner) and citation of further third party reliable sources, particularly in the Enlightenment period. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to: (a) Either the equally new Canadian Yeshiva & Rabbinical School and/or (b) a section to the Daniel Sperber article, which this piece of WP:NOR and violation of WP:NEO is meant to support, by a couple of very new single-purpose editors. (c) Or, another serious option is to Merge and Redirect this name to the Rabbinic Judaism article because Rabbinic Judaism is considered to be "Classic Judaism"! Sheesh, someone gets some money to start a program at a university and then "invents" a new religion or religious name to back it up. Give us all a break please. (d) Therefore, the page thus should actually become a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page of sorts. IZAK (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have a Persian/Jewish background and found the article to be highly interesting and worthwhile. It reflects an important direction in modern Judiasim. Nancy Bakshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.0.46 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and if creator wants, userfy so that any useful references can be placed in one of the history of judaism article (i didnt see any useful refs, but i could be wrong). this term is used ONLY to refer to the canadian school, is not used in a sense comparable to classical music, classical architecture, or classic coke. this is in fact original research and synthesis. its usefulness or appeal to any of our esteemed readers does not justify it as an article. I have myself never heard this term, and i suspect i would have. I also know that there is no consensus on such a term within jewish scholarship, and if anyone tried to introduce this specific meaning to this term, they would be drowned out by a chorus of scholars.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - just for completeness, I just want to mention that I started this with a comment at the Judaism project. I also modified the author's other edits along the same lines, but this was too huge a matter to easily correct, and I do not know the rules for "prod", so I brought up ther issue there.

(cont.) I would have no problem with the article if it would be written NPOV, particularly with its implications that Orthodoxy is not Classical Judaism, an issue about which there is consensus to accept as a legitimate POV, albeit open to question by the other denominations. In other words, the article needs to present its main concepts (that they represent classical Judaism, others do not) as the opinions of a small, recent denomination, not as facts. It was be as if an article would state, "the Catholic Church abandoned authentic Christinity, and sect xyz restored it".Mzk1 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The writer's use of the word "classic" is in line with its article on Wikipedia (of lasting worth, with a timeless quality...distinguished from a newer variety). As such, used as a way of describing Judaism especially given the context and history described in the article, is fitting. At the same time, "Early Christianity" (also on Wikipedia) describes a time-period of pre-denominational Christianity, without much direct referencing to the term itself. Rather, it describes the context of the time as different from what followed. Similarly, "Classic Judaism" describes the context of a modern, "classic" variety and a very real phenomenon among the Jewish community. Wikipedia has the opportunity to acknowledge the diversity and complexity of the Jewish community by including this article here. 76.10.136.9 (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Melanie Ollenberg[reply]

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.