Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hinduism and Judaism (2nd nomination)

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The result was nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure). -- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 17:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and Judaism

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

This article seems to me to be an amalgam of some information from the Hinduism and Judaism, as well as from India–Israel relations and History of the Jews in India. There is no content on this page that indicates it merits a separate page. It is poorly written and sourced; most of the references are not scholarly works. Finally, there is a significant quantity of OR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The discussion, and the content now in the article, have convinced me the nomination is now unnecessary. In my defence, virtually all the significant content in the article was added by the creator after the nomination, and was from sources I was unaware of. Of course, this is definitely a good thing, all I am saying is that the nomination was warranted at the time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article seems like an original research. There are hardly any scholarly sources on the topic. --Rahul (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the time you prepare least surprising and least relevant points, you can actually contribute to the article instead. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BM, that is not a valid reason to keep it. You have not answered my points. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books that are published by Routledge, JHU, Suny, are not scholarly sources? Ok. "poorly sourced and written", However there is source for every single information. One source may need to be replaced for its highly common info. But I see no serious issue there, AFD is usually based on Notability. And the subject is notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article can be taken to AFD for other reasons, too. In this case, it is essentially duplicating a lot of material. There is no reason for this topic to have a separate page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Now at this moment, nothing seems to be duplicated. There were number of religious leaders attending the summit, you could simply swap. Also the statistics, summary of Menasseh are no where explained like they has been explained on this page. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If previous version(1 day old) and current one are compared, there is huge difference. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. half-essay, half-fork, wholly dispensable. An inappropriate intersection of topics. -- Y not? 17:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y, Wrong. Nothing is forked. Considering the current page. Neither anything is written like Essay. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic had been untouched till creation of article and google search shows [1] there are scholarly works available on net who have compared both religions. Further, considering the fact there are new class of people (Hindus who are Jews or vice-versa) who call themselves Hinjew see google book search [2] - this is something interesting which I was not aware till now and can be easily expanded upon. This clearly indicates the article is NOT Original Research and it certainly passes NOTABILITY guidelines. Further, for other points like poorly written and lack of scholarly reference etc - for that maintenance tags are there and issues can be resolved by talk page discussions.Jethwarp (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, as just referring to the above "Find sources" proves: (1) Googling "Hinduism and Judaism" shows about 440,000 results; (2) "books" shows about 23,100 results; (3) "scholar" shows about 643 results; (4) "JSTOR" shows about 78 results. All in all this is obviously a serious topic for which many WP:RS and WP:V sources can be easily lined up. Effort should be put into improving the article. Perhaps contacting WP:EXPERT editors at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and asking for their input and help at improving the article would be a better service to building up WP as an encyclopedia. This nomination is unwarranted and the nominator would do well to read up on WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE. IZAK (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and also perhaps WP:AADD. Jethwarp (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see that nominator has withdrawn his nomination but his arguments that nomination was warranted at that time is not justified. He/she should have read WP:BEFORE guidelines before nomination. Jethwarp (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make assumptions, JT. I DID indeed read those policies, very thoroughly, since this was the first time I was AfDing something. At that point, there was no content in there that precluded nomination. There was, in my opinion, not enough literature cited there to demonstrate notability, nor verifiability. I did indeed search for sources on the topic, and of course I found some, but they did not seem numerous enough to source an entire article. I also consulted another editor more experienced that myself before nominating. When the discussion here convinced me that the article could be salvaged, I withdrew the nomination. So, don't accuse me of bad faith, which is what you seem to be heading towards. Did you even read the article in the state it was when I nominated it? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Vanamonde93. Please do not take it personal. I have nothing against you or anyone else and assume good faith. I was just referring to the following suggestions referred to someone going for AfD in WP:BEFORE - If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {notability}, {hoax}, {original research}, or {advert}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. Jethwarp (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I request both of you to move on. This discussion is already over and no point in unnecessary commenting on the nominator's behaviour or anything else. The nomination was in good faith, and advising the op about the various policies to read once is more than enough. Nothing wrong with this afd, as it brought more scrutiny to this article...which is what we all wanted. It's not exactly a case of WP:Speedy keep or WP:SNOWBALL either so please no "I told you so"s and last wording. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I generally do not drag on unnecessary discussions of AfD as this is not the forum for that. But was forced to reply as I never accused him of any bad faith nominations but was just educating him that weather he is aware of these policies or not. I was not aware he has been already advised by you to read policies before AfD. This is my final comment. Good Bye!!! Jethwarp (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I misinterpreted something, due apologies. I should have kept my mouth shut, too. Have a good day. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2014 (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.