Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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 keep. I am closing this a bit early. Consensus is clear. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superstition in Judaism[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Superstition in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions is being contested @ Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies#RfC Superstitions in Muslim societies related questions. In expectation of consistency that same rule applies to all similar theme articles I am putting this article to have Wikipedia community consensus. Bookku (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"... As anyone steeped in anthropology, mythography, and related fields can tell you, superstitions are often far older than the dominant religious context they are found in, and new ones also arise through the same sorts of processes that generate other popular-culture phenomena like urban legends (sometimes superstition and urban legend cannot even be cleanly separated, especially when the legend is a couple of centuries old).....then it would probably make more sense to do this geographically (e.g. Middle Eastern, European, South Asian, etc.) rather than by religion. Or to do it country-by-country, or culture-by-culture. Since there's no clear connection between superstition and particular religions, the current article seem to be a fake topic with a PoV to advance (or is easily taken for one, whatever the intent was).

In the same discussion at RfC Superstitions in Muslim societies related questions there is one more point that opposes use word Superstition and recommends wording Folk belief instead.

"...I am still reticent about the word superstition, to me it seems very similar to a folk belief/practice/religion, though cast in a more negative light. So a list of superstitions isn't criticism per se, but it slants the reader toward a negative view. If it is intended specifically as criticism, perhaps it belongs in the Criticism of Islam article?.."

I don't know if above needs separate move discussion at talk page of Superstition for change of name to Folk belief. I have expressed my opinions @ RfC Superstitions in Muslim societies related questions already so I need not repeat the same in more details rather let other Wikipedia users deliberate the same.

Over to Wikipedian community Thanks Bookku (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I do not understand what objections there could be. GPinkerton (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this here because the nominator thinks the topic is not notable, or because they think a move to a new article name would be appropriate? Mccapra (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different opinions of two different users highlighted in green one after other in my comment, I am relating to this article for consistency in Wikipedia policy formation and understanding Wikipedia community consensus.

Bookku (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about what though? Sorry, but I’m not clear what outcome you’re looking for. If you think this article should be deleted that’s a discussion to have here. If you think it should probably be kept but renamed and rewritten to some extent, that’s not a discussion to have here and we can speedily close it. Mccapra (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is primarily about whether to keep the article or delete? IMHO Issues are nuanced and interconnected any hurried closure will be like not giving way to the steam and will only bring back discussion at some other point.Bookku (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a lay user I expect consistency in principles applied across the articles. From my side I attempted discussion at central place at Talk:Superstition but it was mate with non-participation. Those who are against religion based superstition related article let them have chance to put up their point of views.Bookku (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting an RfC for one religion but an AfD for a rival religion is not consistent. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not expect such perception. Whether it is RfC or AfD rather I did put up my opponents point of views in neutral fashion. I Invited people in discussion in neutral fashion. Superstition related articles should be there for religions or none - I am consistent in this position. It is okay for me to drop RfCs and AfD for all.Pl. let me know if that helps.Bookku (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No proper rationale offered for deletion and no case made that the topic isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GPinkerton. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is sufficiently sourced so should remain. --- FULBERT (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The existence of multiple book-length works on the subject such as Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion and Jewish Magic and Superstition should make this a no-brainer. I would say that this AfD will definitely end in a "keep", but that would only cast an ayin hara, so uttering the words "poo, poo, poo" (as a substitute for spitting three times) will undo the potential damage by the evil eye. Alansohn (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No clear rationale behind nominating. The topic is clearly notable unless a bigger consensus emerges declaring such topics to be non-notable for a stand-alone article. Roller26 (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this AFD seems like a violation of WP:POINT. The nominator (Bookku) created Superstitions in Muslim societies. Myself and some others questioned whether there were any sources that covered the topic as a whole, and argued the article had WP:OR and WP:COATRACK issues. So now Bookku is nominating Superstition in Judaism for deletion. This is evident in the fact that Bookku's nomination does not mention a single problem with Superstition in Judaism whatsoever.VR talk 14:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT says:

If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion. Do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale.

VR talk 14:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After I read one of statements there "...Since there's no clear connection between superstition and particular religions, the current article seem to be a fake topic with a PoV to advance (or is easily taken for one, whatever the intent was)...... I felt it reasonable to seek wider inputs. This AfD has nothing to do with issue of references at other article but Above AfD statement is very clear "...Existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions is being contested.... which would be equally applicable to this article. As such I was not aware of the rules that one can not put similar article on deletion notice and still do not understand logic behind. Logic in my mind was if larger audience input is also against associating religions and religious communities to superstitions then I would self nominate Superstitions in Muslim societies for AfD. And also I did not get if you were and are sure there are not enough refs for Superstitions in Muslim societies then why you did not put it for AfD it self. Besides you people were reluctant to go point by point at RfC at central talk page of Talk:Superstition. And sources related problem you raised later you earlier started with definition of superstition and all for which I asked you to start RfC at central talk of Superstition, you did not do it I did put all your points neutrally in RfC, which you did not discuss point by point. If discussion does not happen centrally one ends up making mistakes like this, Wikipedians need to co-operate for central discussion IMHO.ThanksBookku (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Booku, if you don't immediately provide a clear and succinctly stated reason why this article should be deleted, then I'm going to close this discussion early under WP:SK ground #1.—S Marshall T/C 14:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose users are missing "...Since there's no clear connection between superstition and particular religions, the current article seem to be a fake topic with a PoV to advance (or is easily taken for one, whatever the intent was)...... Which made my mind to seek inputs from wider audience through AfD. Wikipedia has too many rules many of which I am not aware of. But honestly I felt more attention to the topic at hand is better. Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This article is definitely notable, well sourced and should remain. Ibn Daud (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've studied a range of religions and, while they have beliefs that may be challenged, they are mostly against superstitions. So superstitions are not particularly linked to any given religion, but are regional and cultural in nature. So it makes far more sense to cover superstition by country or culture than to try and link it to religions. The latter sounds more like an agenda.Bermicourt (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not adequately distinguish religious and ethnic groups. It also tries to be very broad without the sourcing to support what it is saying, and ends up being just vacuuos. There may be a valdid topic here, but this article does not do it justice, and so should be deleted under TNT guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that ethnicity and religion are very much tied together when it comes to Judaism. Ibn Daud (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except we should not conflate them in an article. We should treat them as distinct. Keep in mind the idea that "ethnicity and religion are tied together in Judaism" largely ignores the deep ethnic differences within Judaism, with clearly distinct ethnic sub-groups within the overall religious grouping. Plus it ignores the fact that there are large numbers of people who are ethnically Jewish but do not practice in any way the religion of Judaism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per User:GPinkerton, User:Debresser, and User:Ibn Daud. warshy (¥¥) 17:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though it's a very poor article, and name. If it were better, I'd suggest a merge to Jewish folklore. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic is clearly supported by substantial writings and s therefore notable. The motive for nominating this seems nothing to do with the article's intrinsic nature. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep based solely on going to AfD without attempting talk page discussion first as per WP:BEFORE C3. Also noting that the nominating editor created this AfD in response to their similar RfC where very minimal discussion occurred and no consensus had been reached so creating this AfD seems premature. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are good sources for it although I find it amazing that the article doesn't use Joshuah Trachtenbrerg's book mentioned above. Or that it evidently wasn't found in a Googlebooks search by the nominator (if indeed they did one, it does look as though their reason for nomination might not be notability). Doug Weller talk 12:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Superstition in the Jewish community and culture are distinct from other superstitions. Extensive sourcing available.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn's sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-ish, per much of the above, but consider the idea to shift articles like this toward "Folklore of", "Folk belief in", "Folk beliefs of", etc. There's some ongoing discussion of this at Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies. The short version is that the "superstition[s]" label is apt to have WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:BIAS, and MOS:WTW problems, while a broader topic would not, and would actually be more encyclopedic anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seem like most of the delete arguments are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep When studying a religion we may want to understand what the common understanding is about superstition in that religion. For example if I am studying the Jewish temple and read about how it is specified in so many ways to be holy, I may start to look at the religion in terms of its belief system as a whole and want to know specifically how it's beliefs are differentiated from local superstition / purification rites / spiritual smudging / feng shui / new age / etc. So local / folk superstition could be classified as a belief system in contrast to the Jewish faith. And in that case it makes sense to be able to compare and contrast a religion with other systems of belief that appear related or even similar to it on some level. To imply we can only explore religious topics in a top down way is to miss the point of religious study: it's the cross links between these topics that make them so rich and interesting to study. By deleting articles like this we delete interesting content with real sources. Why delete unless we are motivated by biased goals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.33.101 (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2020 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Superstition_in_Judaism

Leave a Reply