Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 as the consensus indicates. Moreover, the rationales on the deletion side seem to be stronger and guideline/policy-based than on the retention side. –MuZemike 22:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and bus stops

[edit]
Judaism and bus stops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(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]

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)
They do: ..."religious campaign" against objectionable "bus stop"..." Chesdovi (talk) 09:29, 7 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]
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]
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]
What is your source for this? Chesdovi (talk) 16:54, 7 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.
Because a religion affects everyday things. From domestic violence to water treatment/environment issues to sport and bus stops. Judaism cares about bus stops. Jews are forbidden from walking to bus stops on Saturdays. Etc, etc. Chesdovi (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
Yes, we know it's not a joke because there have actually been studies done on the link between Scientology and suicide. Meaningful sources actually exist and can be cited. That is not the case with Judaism and bus stops. We have plenty of sources about Judaism (some of which might even mention bus stops in passing), and we have plenty of sources about bus stops, but we have no sources which significantly and specifically discuss the relevance and importance of bus stops in Jewish culture. This is the definition of WP:SYNTH. SnottyWong soliloquize 14:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be correct in your assertions, but the guideline does not establish that articles must be unsynthesised, only that points made within the article itself must not be. There is a notable connection between the two, whether or not sources specifically discuss the importance of bus stops in Jewish culture. Eg. Source A: "Religious Jews campaign against advertisements displaying bacon products". Source B: "There has been a 25% decrease in bacon sales since 2010." Neither sources link the two, but using both in the article would imply that the Jewish campaign reduced sales. I have presented sources which state that bus stops were defaced by Jews for religious reasons. This is not SYNTH. Indeed, references in the source material need not be the main topic of the source material. Chesdovi (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VERIFY says: "Drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the no original research policy. If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the novel position being made here? There is none. It is a fact that Judaism has influenced the way Jews use and treat bus stops. Third party sources are used. That would be the books which used secondary media reports of various occurances. Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RELIABLE says, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RS are used here? Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes ridicule is a good thing. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:27, 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]
'It is as notable as Jews walking on sidewalks' That itself becomes a notable topic, if we have to consider whether the sidewalk is inside an eruv. The point here is whether the way Jews use bus stops is in any way different to gentiles. I'm prepared to accept that it could be, although sadly this article just isn't good enough to show me one way or the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's a good start. Why are Jews and gentiles different when it somes to bus stops? 1). Jews do not use them on Saturdays. 2) Jews campaign against offensive bus stop advertisements. 3) In London there are cigarette stub boxes attached to bus stop, in Jerusaelm, charity boxes. 4) Which other religion makes separate bus stops for men and women? 5) Which other religions holiest site is served by a dedicated bus stop? Chesdovi (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Ultra-orthodox jews don't use anything outside the home/eruv, practically, on Saturday. So what? We have a whole series of articles about the Sabbath. 2. Christians, Muslims, and Hindus have campaigned against offensive advertising as well. Believe it or not, not just "jewish" bus stops have advertising. 3. So fucking what? The "Israeli" custom of collecting charity at bus stops aint jewish, and it aint particularly interesting. I highly suspect that "non-jewish" bus stops sometimes do this -- at least i've seen a salvation army guy collecting at a bus stop once. 4. Islam at least, and i know that in india they have separate public transport for men and women to prevent "eve teasing." 5. There is a bus stop for St. Peters, for Mecca, for almost every major Shiite shrine you can name, for the varous pilgrimage sites for catholics in Europe, for major Hindu Temples, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So is there any way in which both Jews' use of bus stops is different from gentile use and also Jews' use of bus stops (in particular) is different from their use of many other things, on the Sabbath. I think we need to demonstrate both before this can really claim notability. A simple prohibition of something's use on the Sabbath is interesting, but it just belongs under Sabbath, not unless there's some specific aspect to that device's use or behaviour. It's not impossible. Look at the prohibitions on producing fire (and indeed, electrical sparks) and the notable innovations or practices that has given rise to. The charity box idea is interesting, but isn't that just charities placing their boxes (as they've long done) where people are going through their loose change.Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects are not assessed whether or not they induce interest. I agree that my answer, compiled in haste, was misleading in that it tried to make a claim of notability by purporting exclusive usage. However, this is not about whether Jews use but stops differently to the general population or not. This article documents the influence Judaism has had on bus stops and visa-versa. And if similar occurrences happen in other circles, let’s have them too. (That was one of the main arguments used to keep the Judaism & violence article – because similar ones exist about other religions. Do not nominate this for deletion because other similar articles do not yet exist.) Beside from the point, which I concede is not a solid connection, regarding the bus stop at religious sites, all other material is sourced in reliable secondary sources, meaning that the subject is notable whether you like it or not.
Regarding the charity boxes, looking at the source again, it seems that is more than just a way of allowing people to dispose of their loose change. In accordance with Jewish belief, the boxes are placed specifically to allow for contributions to protect riders during their journey, i.e. placement stems from an active Jewish involvement by passengers who wish to donate before setting out on a risky journey. Chesdovi (talk) 14:46, 8 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]
He wasn't, according to Elyah Lopian. "Rabbi Elyah Lopian on campus at Yeshivat Knesset Chizkiyahu" is the caption there. Peridon (talk) 21:38, 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. Neither Driving on Shabbat in Jewish law nor Judaism and violence are valid topics for articles on Wikipedia. The important difference between the two is that no editors object to one of those articles and several editors object to the other article. But neither of those articles are substantially sourced on the totality of the topic that the title indicates. In the footnotes of those two articles you do not find substantial treatment of the ostensible subject of the articles. Those are flabby ideas hatched by people who feel that such subjects would make good articles. Both lack the attachment to the discipline that reliance on sources imparts to article-writing. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, because while the Driving on Shabbat in Jewish law nor Judaism and violence articles may not have all the best sources or even wording at this time, yet common sense aka sechel, tells us that there is a very big difference. That's why the human element is crucial in knowing the difference between a well-sourced trivial topic versus a poorly sourced excellent topic. One has to know how to use and apply WP:IGNORE as well. As I said, WP is not ready for this type of petty fogging of Jewish topics yet. Otherwise, prepare for Judaism and umbrellas, Judaism and bomb shelters, Judaism and tents, Judaism and rain coats, etc etc, no doubt one could find material on all this stuff, but they are not really truly encyclopedic topics, and alternately, perhaps in a few years when WP will welcome even the most utterly trivial piece of information there will come a time and place when these kinds of articles will be allowed to take their place next to everything else on WP. IZAK (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Material about Judaism's views towards unbrellas is mostly tied in to their use on shabbat and would therefore be placed, as you know, in Judaism and tents, which could also include ma tovu ohalehca yakkov and ohel le'tuma and the ohel moed, etc. But I doubt there are any source about bomb shelters and raincoats, except melbain on shabbat with raincoats. There is ample material, as shown, regarding J & BS. It may look trivial, but in fact this subject has aolid basis in RS, etc. This is like when the photo of a cheeseberger was removed from Milk and meat in Judaism because some editors thought it looked "too comical", something I just could not agree with. Chesdovi (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a sense of proportion! While the Milk and meat in Jewish law article is well-named, as the article is named, and not Milk and meat in Judaism, a silly photo was pulled. There is no need to almost mock what is ok for everyone but what Jews who keep kosher eat. Please keep perspective. Let's move on and edit more productively in a way that will harness WP:CONSENSUS rather than divide it. IZAK (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A way too trivial topic for an encyclopedia, and a mixture of unrelated topics; for the record, the claim that use of bus stops on Saturday is against the (Orthodox interpretation of) Jewish law is not sourced to anywhere. Some of the information might belong to other articles (probably as a few words, or a sentence at most, as an example), but the page itself cannot stay. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not unrelated at all. All examples given relate to Judaism and bus stops. You think it’s trivial, but unbeknownst to yourself, Jewish law deals with the most "trivial" things. So much so, detractors of Judaism say Judaism gets lost in the ritual minutiae. Jewish ritual involves and applies to everything. From tying shoe laces to bus stops, etc. Lack of sources is no reason to delete. There is no doubt that the relation between the two is significant enough for wikipeadia. Even more sources will be found over time. Chesdovi (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of sources certainly is a reason to delete. It's one of our most important policies. If you can repair the article into a passable state I will change my vote to keep, but you have to do it now, not merely promise that it can be done later. You may want to work on it in your userspace if you don't have enough time now. —Soap— 11:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. What I meant was if something isn't cited, a source can be found. There are for sure enough RS here already. Also, why are individual sources needed which make the connection with both? There is something very Jewish about the western wall. Surely the bus stop serving this holy site, in which tens of thousands of worshippers arrive each week, is connected to Judaism. The connection cannot be ignored because no source can be found that discusses “Judaism and the western wall bus stop” both in the same breath. This page is called and documents Judaism and bus stops. Why need they be discussed simultaneously in a single source for inclusion? It is not titled Jewish bus stops. Chesdovi (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have passed the POINT stage. The article has come on leaps and bounds and is a good candidate for keep. WP:SYNTH does not apply in such an article because the two things are separated by an "and", and therefore do not need to be discussed in a single source, even thought we do have such sources included. This article does not propose that there is an intrinsic mystical aspect between bus stops and Judaism. All is does is discuss the notable relationship and interaction between the two. See Drugs and prostitution. Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Chesdovi—from where do you derive that "WP:SYNTH does not apply in such an article because the two things are separated by an 'and', and therefore do not need to be discussed in a single source…"? Bus stop (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's my own interpretation of SYNTH. The example given there does not really cover article page names themselves and the way content is soured for that subject, rather the material within the article. Anyhow, it seems that if the subject matter at hand is of a "serious" nature, the communtiy allows for such SYNTH for actual pages, as in the case of Islam and violence. Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The community doesn't allow for something if the community objects to something. Bus stop (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concensus reached then. (some will always disagree) Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:NPOV I find:
""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
Note that consensus is not deemed to be the most important principle under all circumstances. Bus stop (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a piece of garbage that's embarrassing, frankly. Orthodox Jewish law has no real views of "bus stops" -- it has views on mingling of the sexes, working on the sabbath, censorship/pornography etc... it applies these views to bus stops in the same way it applies them to ball parks, shopping malls, schools and sidewalks.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point. You don't like it because it has a trivial ring to it. But if a subject has notability, be it Judaism and ball parks, shopping malls, schools or sidewalks, then its belongs. Religion has many views on many different things. That's why we have pages like Religion and children, Religious education, etc. And we do have Hebrew school, Jewish day school. We don't have more articles like this because no one has been bothered to create them. Don't stifle wiki! Chesdovi (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are two propensities at work here. I don't think the stifling propensity is endangered at wiki. I think the sourcing-requirement propensity is endangered here at wiki. Bus stop (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hard to imagine that would clear WP:NOTABLE. NickCT (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. why lose all the valuable information and the time the person who made the article put into it ? also I found it very funny, and it said plenty about Judaism and bus stops =). If not keep, we could put a "Judaism and bustops" bit in Busstops, and a "Busstops and Judaism" bit in Judaism ?! If not, we should probably put some more work into making the article better instead of throwing it away. Nooba booba sooba looba (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nooba booba sooba looba is a newbie. Chesdovi (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a user of both mayonnaise (and salad cream...) and buses (but not usually together), I found the article amusing. Although this may not have been the intent of the creator(s), I wonder if it could be preserved in the 'how not to' area? At bus stops, I look up frequently. This is nothing to do with God's providence. I know that, in some places, the drivers will not stop unless you give a signal. As it stands, the article puts me more in mind of a junk shop rather than of a museum. It is a congeries of information - I assume by now it has been checked through against misinformation, but as I cannot find the 'famous' anecdote about the rabbi on a certain definitely famous search engine, I am not so sure. Possibly the 'famous' story is only found in the printed source given. Peridon (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally sourced here but was correctly removed. If you search, you shall find:

Chesdovi (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which precisely? Do you mean my arguments? In my responses I have shown there seems to be no problem with synthesis, notability or RS. Just people don't think it’s serious enough and view it as a joke. Well, let them. There is no policy stating that an article cannot cause the ends of ones mouth to slowly rise. Chesdovi (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We have an good article on Shabbat and elevators. Chesdovi (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Could a solution be to expand the topic to also cover the bus (not just the bus stop). Then the article could cover the controversy of proposed gender-segregated buses, see El País coverage Las mujeres, detrás. Intelectuales israelíes denuncian la segregación en autobuses de Jerusalén. MrCleanOut (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested this earlier, but only Joe489 has taken up the idea. See: Requested move Chesdovi (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, take it up again. SnottyWong acted in a very parochial manner, from the premise you were disrupting WP. The discussion has advanced since. If the article comprises both the bus and the bus stop, then there are no problems with WP:RS. Here is a German RS (Der Spiegel) Frauen müssen im Bus zur Klagemauer hinten sitzen. El País above is as RS as it gets. I'm sure other people can find English RS. MrCleanOut (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: the above link is to the Shabbat elevator article and not to Shabbat and elevators, an important but key distinction because there is very much a type of elevator mechanically designed and installed and widely used on Shabbat in hospitals and large buildings as a Shabbat elevator while there is no such thing as a Shabbat bus stop per se. Similarly, an article about Judaism and elevators would be just as inappropriate and borderline silly as Judaism and bus stops or Judaism and wheelchairs patently are. It's surely time to move on to more productive editing.IZAK (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reluctantly, because I'd like to live in a world where there were odd little corners such as the cross-over between Judaism and bus stops, much as the other fascinating aspects of Sabbath observation (as for elevators, noted above). However I'm just not convinced, by this article or its sources, that the linkage between the two is anything like strong enough. Jews avoid some aspects of bus stops on the Sabbath, but no more than they avoid other things. Bus stops in Israel or North London are a bit different to those in South London, but not in ways that are closely enough tied to Judaism. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a meaningful intersection, well covered by impressive array of reliable sources. Very Talmudic article (a bit choppy). And, yes, it's improved past the POINT point. Now that said, I participated in a "Judaism and violence" discussion and I still don't get the point. If there are numerous sources on A+B, even though they take it all from different angles, that's a good wiki-style throwing together of secondary sources. I didn't see any source on A only, or B only, in a quick review. But whether the POINT is that A+B topics should be limited to A+B, or that they should not, at this hour I fail to see how the article makes the point. And, yup, we still have that article on Hotel toilet paper folding. JJB 00:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC) A little more reflection and I considered that the point could be "A+B topics should be limited to sources that discuss A+B in close relationship, and not to sources that only mention A and B somewhere, as the bus-stop article demonstrates such absurdity". If so I disagree. Any A+B sources are permitted, and normal edit cycle will weed out the poorer sources. An off-point source should not be met with the argument that it does not join A+B closely enough, but that its contribution to the topic is overwhelmed by better sources. So still keep. JJB 00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Canvassing from pro-Israeli blog to this AFD: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a surprise. —Carrite, Oct. 12, 2010.
WP:POINT is a not policy and nowhere does it talk about creating an article to make a point, and more importantly, nowhere does it say that if the guideline in compromised, a page is automatically fit for deletion. So any views here which voted delete citing POINT should be discounted. Chesdovi (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT is a not policy and nowhere does it talk about creating an article to make a point, and more importantly, nowhere does it say that if the guideline in compromised, a page is automatically fit for deletion. So any views here which voted delete citing POINT should be discounted. Chesdovi (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret. I found it a very amusing article but my sense of humor isn't policy . . .yet. Sol (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the presentation of information in its current form is very WP:POV. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep. Per the illuminating diff identified by Viriditas, repeated here [5], Chesdovi seems to have created this article with the intention that it should not pass an AfD, and then use this outcome to leverage that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism should not pass either. His parading of keep arguments here therefore seems hollow. I believe though, that Chesdovi (inadvertently) has created an article that could be kept. It appears that orthodox Jews can ride an elevator, but not press the elevator buttons; that they can ride busses, but not flag the bus down or press a button to open the door; that a Rabi cannot look up to see if a bus is coming, because this can be construed as a lack of trust in God’s providence; that they insist on gender segregated busses, etc. This is silly enough to be picked up by the international RS media, in the infotainment rarity sections, as “in-depth” coverage -- and then Wikipedia can have an article on it. More work on the article, expanding it also to cover the bus itself, not just the bus stop, is required for a definitive pass. Btw - I have no interest in doing so, and I don't care if it is deleted or not. However, there are no strict policy-based arguments for deletion, it is not OR, SYNTH, INDISCRIMINATE. Yes, it was meant to be POINTy, and this has put off a lot of editors as DONTLIKEIT -- but as long as there are RS, the article is policy compliant. MrCleanOut (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, but is it in keeping with civil discussion to refer to the religion of many of the people you are having a discussion with as silly? And yes, it does sound silly the way you are putting it, but that is because you are generalizing - none of these things are obvious or necessarily universal. Just as an example, it was quite traumatic for the Jews who were forced to ride on the Sabbath after fleeing the Old City in the face of the invading Jordanian armies - this notwithstanding that they also lost their city, homes, and everything they owned. (This I heard on a recent AACI tour of Katamon, Jerusalem, quoting Puah S's first-hand account, although I would need to re-read the original to verify.) This even though, as you mentioned, they themselves were not technically violating everything. These things are quite serious to some of us, even if they don't fit your pre-conceived notions. That is appears silly enough to get picked up by supposedly RS sources, this is true - which is one of the problems with those sources.Mzk1 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with this conclusion. Although Chesdovi's actions are problematic, the foundations of WP are objectivity and a trust in 3rd party WP:RS. Our AfD action here should be independent of any reasons for the article's creation, based purely on these WP:RS to establish verifiable notability (as noted elsewhere, I'm not seeing this). As to the more troubling issue of Peace and violence in Judaism, we should place our faith in a robust defence of WP:OSE and base that on the same justification through 3rd party sources, not allow a digression into whether this article was permitted to exist or not. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the issue with notability here? Is this article any less notable than Toilet paper orientation? Chesdovi (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have failed to read, or else deliberately ignored, a single word that I wrote. Notability of one article is unaffected by the existence or not of another. Your repeated attempt to argue that it is is becoming simply disruptive. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to say that J & Bs is a notable subject in itself. If you read the additions to the article, you will learn that the Bus Stop Burnings became a national issue in Israel. Surely notable? Chesdovi (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you are saying that, but what you're failing to do is to demonstrate the existence of outside sources to back this up. None of the sources listed here describe a relationship between Jews and bus stops that it more than that between Jews and any other object, or bus stops and any other racial or religious group. There's nothing to this theme, even though a great many Jews clearly wait (looking up, down or wherever) at a great many bus stops. Listing all the possible minutiae of the bus stops of Israel mentioned in every possible newspaper source dilutes this, more than it supports it. The only real note linking Israel and bus stops seems to be sad news of petty hooliganism and terrorist attacks. Perhaps it would be best if this article were redirected to Judaism and violence instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by outside sources?
  • Give a pretend examlpe of a source which would suffice in describing a sufficient relationship between the two.
  • Explain why the violence directed at bus stops documented here is better placed at an article about violence more than an article about bus stops themsleves?
  • I also hope uou have not overlooked the charity section. I am not aware of this type od solicitation occuring elsewhere on such a scale ( not that that matters here) Chesdovi (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On The Fence (Am I allowed to say that?) I find this article fascinating, if somewhat credulous of certain questionable charges - see my comments there. But the title sounds remarkably like the punchline of the old "Elephant and the Jewish Problem" joke, and makes Wikipedia look silly. (I am assuming good faith here on the part of the author.) It would be nice if it could be kept with a normal sounding title or similarly merged. It is hard for anyone who knows Israel to say bus stops are not a notable part of the culture here, or that they have not often featured in the news here, even if the reports often violated the law against racial incitement. And this does not only apply to the religious sector; how about the soldier's trampiada? The issues with hitchiking and changes in the culture relating to it? I think Bus Stops in Israel would be notable and normal, for example. But I think material here needs a higher than usual level of RS, given the nature of our local press.Mzk1 (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:IZAK raises an interesting point above. "The Milk and meat in Jewish law article is well-named". Perhaps this is the solution to both this AfD and the J&V one. Having a topic be ______ & Judaism or Judaism & _______ is too wide to be anything other than a POV essay and is an inherently problematic topic. However, Bus Stops in Jewish law, would neatly limit the scope to verifiable, NPOV, facts. The same logic may be applied to the J&V article, Violence in Jewish law saves us all the questions of what makes a bus stop (or a violent act) "Jewish" and focuses on whether or not it is addressed in Jewish law. Of course to be fair, equal weight will be given (as in all halacha articles) to orthodox, conservative, reforms, etc positions. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion makes sense, but I have worked on improving this article. This is besides from the fact that arguments here for deletion do not cite any actual policy which would prescribe deletion. It all boils down to editors own personal views of what an article should be based on, with a smattering of suggestions from guideline pages. After all, where does it say a page on Judaism and X cannot be made up of many sources which discuss the two subjects? I would be upset to see this well sourced article deleted. Chesdovi (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Since this AfD started, it's become evident that this article and AfD have ignited a drawn out struggle that's beginning to violate WP:POINT and even WP:WAR, starting with the creation of Judaism and bus stops, and then this AfD[clarification needed], and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism and a follow-up AfD guaranteed to arouse controversy at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence. Right now the situation seems to be one of people getting carried away with WP:POINT and WP:REICHSTAG because of what's going on, and it's time to stop this vicious cycle and go on with rational mature editorial behavior. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the fire, where is the smoke, and why are you calling for cease fire when there is no battle? There are only two AfDs, not four. In fact, this discussion is improving, not deteriorating. The early part of this AfD is in a very bad shape. About half the delete votes are "per WP:POINT" -- and Chesdovi is merely (and correctly) saying that this is bogus, "delete per POINT" is not a valid deletion rationale rooted in any policy. Nor is "delete – this is not kosher" a valid argument. Other editors are calling the article "crap", "garbage" and "junk shop". Chesdovi’s arguments are brushed off with "OTHERCRAPEXITS". These votes ought not be considered by the closing admin. The canvassing alert flamebox is here for what reason? -- I see no swell of WP:SPAs. The article ought to be judged on its own merits, not the (seemingly questionable) circumstances under which Chesdovi created it. Bottom line is, that if the controversy of gender segregated busses is covered in the article, there are plentiful of RS in all the main languages, e.g. the German and Spanish RS I provided above. MrCleanOut (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So far there are three inter-related AfDs that have sprung up, starting with this one here (1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops, then on to (2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism followed by (3) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence, and as you can see from those topics the climb up or down the slippery slope of WP:POINT has gone from an AfD about "Bus stops" to ones about "Peace and violence" and just plain "Violence" -- see those AfDs. What does what happens on buses have to do with bus stops as such, if so then create an article about Judaism and buses or Judaism and busing or Judaism and bus passengers or Judaism and public transportation or Judaism and vehicles or Rules of conduct in buses according to Jewish law or Judaism and segregation of the sexes on buses or Laws and customs practiced by Orthodox Jews on buses. Just how far out is this "topic" going to reach before it's recognized for it's intersection with absurdity by WP:DISRUPT along the way? IZAK (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Yes, there is Judaism, and yes, there are bus stops, but to title the two together and write a whole article about how the two intersect is ludicrous. Each of the points (prohibition against taking the bus on Shabbat, indecent advertisements at bus stops in religious neighborhoods, charity boxes at bus stops in Israel, overcrowding at the bus stop by the Western Wall, grave desecrations, and rabbi stories) can be adequately covered on their respective topic pages, and the creators of this page have already provided the references. There is no need to group everything under a ridiculous heading like "Judaism and bus stops". The casual reader might even think we're starting up another attack on this battle-scarred religion. Yoninah (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting but not encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 19:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (futile) Keep, since the topic is significantly covered by reliable sources. Peter Karlsen (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems well-researched and referenced to me. No reason to delete.  Grue  13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2 While I realize that WP:OTE means that no article can impact delete/keep of another article, I assume that any admin closing this will read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence, & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism.
    All of the articles have lots of sources. The crux of the issue as I see it (and the reason User:Chesdovi created Judaism & bus stops), is that all of these articles show that Judaism is a religion that has what to say about almost every topic in a persons life. That's it. Once you understand that Judaism touches upon everything, you can create Judaism & _________.

    The problem is that while you will find sources for Judaism and toothbrushes, the topic has no clear definition of scope. Whatever can be found that mentions toothbrushes (in Jewish history, Jewish texts, or Jewish law) is fair game to enter the article. It is at best ripe for WP:TRIVIA and often will be WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:COATRACK as editors debate the inclusion or exclusion of a toothbrush related story/news item/law/event. As was stated in one of the AfDs mentioned above "The article offers the reader a snapshot of that argument at any given moment."
    Now go back and reread the above sentence while replacing toothbrush with violence or bus stops or elecricity or matchsticks. For each one, the argument stands.

    I would however point out that there is room for much of the information in these articles (J&V, PV&J, J&BS) that could have a place elsewhere. As long as the topic is clearly defined and encyclopedic. Using the above test, articles about "________ in Jewish law" or "________ in the Old testament" or "Historical accounts of ________" are fine given appropriate WP:RS. Violence in Jewish law or Violence in the old testament are both fine topics as they clearly define the scope of the article. To those who will say that the J&V article includes all of these, I refer to WP:NOTPAPER. Sometimes more, yet focused articles allow clarity of topic and purpous. Violence in the old testament is a very diffent topic from ethical questions of assasination in the modern state of Israel. What Noleander did by putting them together was to create an illusion of a common thread thereby violating WP:SYNTH even though no new verbiage was created.
    I recommend that all three articles be deleted and any new articles on these topics be monitored for a while with the question being "What is the scope?". Joe407 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reason why we can't have Judaism and toothbrushes or even Shabbos toothbrush! Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shabbos toothbrush is a non-notable product, deserving a brief mention at a related article at best. (If you want to argue otherwise, show me significant third-party coverage.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked into the sources enough, but a quick search shows that Shabbat and Toothbrushes is covered:
  • Daniel Neustadt: The daily halachah discussion: “Brushing without toothpaste is permitted,14 provided that the following conditions are met: • Use a toothbrush that is designated for Shabbos use only.15 Some poskim require that the Shabbos toothbrush also look different from the…”
  • Michael Chizkiyah: The halachic guide to medical practice on Shabbos: “Since using a toothbrush may cause bleeding, there are some who are stringent not to use a brush at all on Shabbos.”
  • Yaakov Ephraim Forchheimer: Erev Pesach on Shabbos: “One may also brush his teeth with a toothbrush that was designated to be used for Shabbos. The toothbrush must be soft enough so that it will not be able to cause bleeding. However, it is forbidden to brush with any water or…”
  • Simcha Bunim Cohen: The Shabbos home: “Brushing Teeth One may not brush his teeth with a dry toothbrush* on Shabbos if it will cause his ... There is disagreement among the authorities regarding whether one may use a moistened toothbrush on Shabbos..”
  • Dovid Ribiat: 39 Melochos: “Using Toothbrush on Shabbos..”

Chesdovi (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources directly link the two subjects. Chesdovi (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point out where I have included my personal opinions and feelings in this article? I will gladly remove them and then you can vote Keep. Chesdovi (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Judaism_and_bus_stops&oldid=1265778132"