Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbat module

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 Sabbath mode. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat module[edit]

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

This seems to be the same thing as Sabbath mode. Page has also been tagged as a WP:NEO since December 2011. I don't think a merge is necessary since everything is already covered on Sabbath mode page. mikeman67 (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The above analysis seems to be correct. I suggest somebody go over the text of both articles to make sure nothing needs to be merged, and then we can redirect this to Shabbat mode. Debresser (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect: as per above users. The New York Times source given in this article does not even have word "module", but it does have "mode". --Human3015^TALK 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Sabbath mode I don't see any meaningful difference between the two concepts or their articles. In looking at the various combinations of Shabbat vs. Sabbath and Mode vs. Module via Google search I find "sabbath mode" - 370,000; "shabbat mode" - 3,680; "shabbat module" - 1,040; and "sabbath module" - 419. I think that the results show which term is primary. Alansohn (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect as per above - seems pretty obvious. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[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.