Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:38, 7 October 2010

Judaism and bus stops

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

OK, I really have no idea whether this article should be kept or deleted. I do know, however, that it's been prodded (and I suspect should be de-prodded because I assume that the article creator contests the prod) and that it's been nominated for CSD as a hoax. I feel there's going to be more heat than light at the article until the situation is resolved, and that an AfD would be the best solution - whatever is ultimately decided. I'm therefore taking the article to AfD, while noting that I have no view about deletion either way. TFOWR 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a meaningless intersection of topics. This violates SYNTH by its very existence because it implies that there is something special about these two topics in relation to each other. I suspect this has something to do with the dispute on the Judaism and violence page, though I tagged this with PROD on its own merits, as part of my regular new page patrolling, without looking at the debate on the other page. —Soap— 12:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic "Judaism and bus stops" did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As a Joke it is quite funny though. Marokwitz (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by Soap and Marokwitz. Yoenit (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But wait a minute—both Judaism and bus stops are sourced. This is similar to Judaism and violence in that regard. You mean we can't create billboards on Wikipedia in the form of articles to advance positions? Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to cover both 'Judaism' AND 'bus stops' - and if the sources at J&V don't, there's a problem there. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's a move request to rename it to 'Judaism and transport'! Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but wouldn't that obligate other articles to exist, such as Christianity and transport, and Islam and transport? Bus stop (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax is probably not quite right. Disruption to make a point (of some sort) would be better. Trivial cross categorization would be another (no meaningful connection between judaism and bus stops). Demonstrating incredibly poor judgement on the part of the article creator would be yet another. The creator of the article admits on the talk page he did this to make a rather sophomoric point about the Judaism and violence, Islam and violence etc... category of articles. As bad as those articles are (mostly because of the IP keyboard warriors and wikipedia's dysfunctional editorial system), they are nowhere near as prima facie foolish as this article. Religions are, after all, ethical systems, most of them seek to regulate violence within that framework, have occassionally used violence in their history, have opponents/supporters that claim they are fundamentally violent/peaceful, etc... "Bus stop" is just a noun. Reccomend a brief block of the creator if he keeps on with this kind of crap.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bali ultimate—I think this article is no more silly and improper—from a Wikipedia article-creation point of view—than the Judaism and violence article. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Islam and violence?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question would pivot upon what sources were available. Always, on Wikipedia, the question comes back to sources. What do sources say? That will be the answer to article-creation validity (or invalidity) in relation to the question you pose. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I'm reasonably certain that you just made my point. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I seem to recall a policy against creating articles to prove a point. Perhaps Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Regardless, BusStop's point is valid. If he can source his information about Judaism and his information about Jewish bus stops (or bus stops in Jewish law, or bus stops in Jewish culture), it should stay. This interpretation of WP:N and WP:RS has been debated over at Judaism and violence and the community seems to be ok with it. Joe407 (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RENAME: I have suggested a page rename to expand the subject matter. This will possibly increase the "significant coverage in reliable sources" needed. Chesdovi (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a very clear example of WP:POINT, knock it off. Yoenit (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is so WP:POINTY i Almost accidently got stabbed just reading it. that being Said I almost want move it into user space and put a link at WP:SPIDER and WP:POINT to give an example of such articles. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I told Yoenit on the article's talk page, I quite agree with you. Creating this article is a vio of WP:POINT. It is a brilliantly funny violation but a violation nonetheless. The scary part is that as I am turning this over in my head, I'm not sure why we couldn't create a legit article covering J & Transportation. There definitely is more than enough sourced informations and topics to discuss. I'm sure it would not be the first joke article to be taken seriously. As I stated on the AFD, the problems with a J&T article are the problems with J&V. Namely, there is plenty what to talk about but the line between a WP article and a lecture or position paper become quite blurry. If the community is willing to come down on the side of ___ & ___ articles can stand, than J&T can be a respectable article. Joe407 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:OTHERSTUFF what happens to this article is utterly irrelevant to what happens with any other articles. The community is not coming down on any side of the ___ & ___ argument, they are just saying this particular article needs to be deleted. Yoenit (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total synthesis. Jbtscott (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, does this article "advance a position"? "Synthesis" seems to be mentioned in connection with the advancing of a position. I think the element of advancing a position is missing in the case of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advancing that a relation exists at all? Yoenit (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Could I suggest a cease-fire? I propose that Bus Stop move this article to his/her user space and that an AfD be opened on Judaism and Violence. This would allow the discussion to take place on the true topic at hand. Once the J&V AfD is resolved, if the consensus is that WP policy allows for ___ & ___ articles of this types, Bus Stop would then return this article to the main space and if needed, this Afd would be reopened. Would that work for everyone? Joe407 (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No let's just delete it. What happens with this garbage is of no bearing to what happens with other articles (except that it will reinforce the long standing consensus that trivial cross categorization doesn't make for articles). If you have arguments that some other articles are an example of trivial cross categorization, go deal with those articles.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this article should be deleted since it is not a notable topic. The notability of every article is judged on it's own merit. Marokwitz (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a notable topic - I think that's pretty clear. Other articles don't matter. And Bus Stop didn't create the article, Chesdovi did. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add that comparison articles can exist where the comparison itself has been written about in reliable sources, and sources used must make the comparison. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be a point being made comparing this article to the Judaism and violence article, but if this article was made to argue that "both should be deleted or neither should be deleted, these two are essentially parallels!", we have a WP:POINT violation. A plausible case can be made for the Judaism and violence article, because violence is not "loosely associated" from Jewish history, European history is all too replete with horrific violent atrocities committed against Jewish people culminating in the madness of WW2. Further, the teachings of what is justifiable violence and not has discussed in religious and ethical contexts for many religions and viewpoints, including Judaism. However, I can see nothing, nothing at all, which establishes a connection between the topics "Judaism" and "bus stops" beyond the trivial fact that buses are used by Jews. None the "sources" establish anything else than trivial connections like that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about horrific violent atrocities committed against Jews waiting at bus stops in Israel? There have been many. Chesdovi (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is a religion. Bus stops are transportation collection centers. How the hell are these possibly related? This article has the same logical connection as pages like Buddhists and golf or Muslims and water treatment would have... Unless, of course, the POINT is that terrorists like to attack gatherings of people and that bus stops are handy in that regard. In which case, this becomes yet another in the unending series of POV-driven articles on the Israeli-Palestinian Civil War. —Carrite, Oct. 6. 2010.

Keep The article actually establishes a connection between the two and is well sourced to first class reliable sources. It is only because we "know" that it is a joke do we want to delete it. There is an article which connects Scientology and suicide, even though Scientologists really have a much lower suicide rate than the general public -- especially people of the age and background that are attracted to things like Scientology. Somehow we "know" that that article is not a joke. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete silly WP:POINT article, which stops being funny when you realise it's exactly the kind of thing that attracts ridicule to Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes ridicule is a good thing. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Borderline hoax, textbook violation of WP:SYNTH. Do Jews go to bus stops? Yes. Is that notable? No. It is as notable as Jews walking on sidewalks, Jews going up and down stairs, and Jews riding the subway. SnottyWong ^comment 16:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is is not notable that Jews give charity at bus stops? Or destroy them if they have a poster of a mayonaisse jar? Chesdovi (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SYNTH is in play here, as well as WP:GNG: I can't find evidence that the confluence of Judaism as it relates to Bus Stops is notable. No objection to userfication, if that's the consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you know that...according to Jewish law, one may not walk to a bus stop on shabbat if one intends to take a bus as soon as Shabbat ends? Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great fact to put in the Shabbat article, but doesn't mean we need a separate article on Jews and bus stops. SnottyWong ^converse 17:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added sources at the talk page for an article documenting Juaism and transpotation, per Joe409. Chesdovi (talk)
Delete as a compendium of trivia. Bus stops are used for advertising... Crowds of people are sometimes attacked at bus stops... Etc. etc. etc. Not an encyclopedia-worthy topic, plain and simple. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
Delete per WP:SYNTH and as nonnotable pointy juxtaposition of nouns. Edison (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject title just drew me in and encouraged me to read on, but it is a bit pointy. And there appears to be a lack of references linking Judaism and bus stops. -- role^player 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:POINT and where's the reference that Rabbi Lopian was even at a bustop in that image?—Sandahl (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs some work, but in the spirit of the new direction Wikipedia goes in, in which sources need not be found linking two terms in a title, but rather in which merely separate sourcing for each term is good enough. Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with regards to nouns and SYTH, we have Islam and clothing, Islam and dogs, Christianity and alcohol, Cattle in religion and Religious and spiritual use of cannabis. So why not Judaism and bus stops?

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 * '''Delete''' - [[WP:POINT]] and where's the reference that Rabbi Lopian was even at a bustop in that image?—[[User:Sandahl|Sandahl]] ([[User talk:Sandahl|talk]]) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' needs some work, but in the spirit of the new direction Wikipedia goes in, in which sources need not be found linking two terms in a title, but rather in which merely separate sourcing for each term is good enough. [[User:Bus stop|Bus stop]] ([[User talk:Bus stop|talk]]) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' with regards to nouns and SYTH, we have [[Islam and clothing]], [[Islam and dogs]], [[Christianity and alcohol]], [[Cattle in religion]] and [[Religious and spiritual use of cannabis]]. So why not Judaism and bus stops?