Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in USA

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 08:43, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Jews in USA[edit]

This page has no useful information that isn't contained in pages such as Jew, Jewish population, Jews by country or History of the Jews in the United States. It was created by User:Zain engineer, who may have created this page simply as a disruption. This page may be a candidate for speedy deletion. Carrp 01:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Title is NPOV. Content is NPOV. The article doesn't even have an POV banner. Encyclopedic and 'disturbance' issues are discussed below Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, duplicates content. Wyss 07:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If you think I have 'ever' did any thing incorrect. I'll highly encourage you for a request for explanation. I'll love to see one. That's why I 'never' use sock puppets! :))))
    Plus If I don't make some body else will make it is a very encyclopedic subjects. 36,000+ Google Hits So a lot of people are making such 'disturbance' too.
    You might say they are anti-Semitic, So here it is on jewishvirtuallibrary Page Titled 'Jews in America' on jewishvirtuallibrary.org. There are full fledged books on this topic http://www.ereads.com/book.asp?bookid=511. Let me quote about the author.
    Max I. Dimont’s JEWS, GOD AND HISTORY, with more than a million and half copies in print, has been acclaimed the “best popular history of the Jews written in the English language.
    Probably People at jewishvirtuallibrary and Max I. Dimont are anti-semitic to use such 'disturbing' titles.
    You might continue to track my edits. I am least bothered by them, in fact I like it. So I am not planning to use any sock puppet in near future. :)) Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Simply being NPOV does not mean that an article is merited. If I created an article called Items on Carrp's Desk, it could be completely NPOV, yet certainly doesn't merit mention in WP. Why couldn't the information in Jews in USA be included on one of the many other pages that discusses Jews? In fact your information is already included in WP and appears to have been copied verbatim from Jewish American's population section. Carrp 02:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • You ignored the google hit argument and books and articles on jewishvirtual library. I have added relevant information from jewishvirtuallibrary. i think now your complaints are gone. Any other complaints? Zain 03:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • We'll let users vote on this. I personally think an article with 100% pasted content from a website should be deleted. If you believe WP is missing information in the Jewish American article, why not add it there? If you really like the "Jews in USA" title, make it a re-direct. We have different opinions on this page and I'm going to let the VfD process proceed. Carrp 03:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • Your thought about copying is 100% correct. (by the way I also mentioned it in edit comment). it is bcoz the vfd was called without much discussion. So ofcourse now we have to NPOV the claims of Jewish virtual library. I'll really love if you lend a hand in it. So a lot of work is left in that article that's why I labeled it as a stub. but your demand of proving 'uniqueness' of the article required quick adding of data. So if you think it shouldn't be copied as it is. You should edit it. Plus the jewish virtual library data is in public domain. Wikipedia is also public domain. and its policy says that we can copy paste text from public domain sources whenever applicable.
            Now about Jewish American that article is generally about individuals and this is more about community interactions. These two are different things. One is about individuals other is their collective influence. you can understand this difference when u read jewishvirtuallibrary. 'American Jews' are treated different then 'jews in america' both topics are given different treatments. So is here. Now your objections gone? Zain 03:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[Material formerly occupying this position, and concerned with issues of possible copyright vilations, have been moved to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Jews in USA, since such questions cannot be resolved here, and this page cannot authorize anyone to remedy such violations. --Jerzy(t) 22:22, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)]
  • Confused
Rather than this being a vote for deletion or not, I would like an explaination. Having worked on History of the Jews in the United States and Jewish American, both would seem to be good places for material on Jews and politics. In fact, I have already writen a lot of material on these subjects in History of the Jews in the United States. Why not add material there? It already talks about Jews and socialism, Jewish support for Israel after 1967, and Jews and civil rights. Or, add it to Jewish American, which is not about individuals at all if you read the article. Please justify the article (not the title, which is fine, but could be a redirect) and why it needs to be seperate. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I did a little more search work for it and I found [1] It probably suggests that we can reprint (reproduce the work) if we put link to jewish virtual library. Similar to GFDL I think. Only one constraint that if the content is not orignal work of jewishvirtuallibrary but it is a borrowed work. Then we have to get permission to orignal source too. The content which I copied was not a third party work.
Now American Jew refers to individuals. While this one is about community. I found neglect of this topic when I used to view jew article. There was a section of jew world wide in that we had sub-sections of jew in Europe etc but had no section of jews in USA. So It is normally difficult to put some content directly in jew article. So I prefer making a seperate article then by vfd get a merge vote.
Zain 22:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The Jew article talks about populations in Israel and the Diaspora, the Europe thing has since been changed, so your argument does not make sense. The article on American Jew talks about the American Jewish community, look at the content, not just the title (if you want, redirect this title to that article). Plus, so does History of the Jews in the United States. You have not explained what you want this article to cover that is not in the other two, or, indeed, what content you want to see here. It just seems redundant. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[Material formerly occupying this position, and concerned with issues of possible copyright vilations, have been moved to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Jews in USA, since such questions cannot be resolved here, and this page cannot authorize anyone to remedy such violations. --Jerzy(t) 22:22, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)]
    • You said that :
      The article on American Jew talks about the American Jewish community, look at the content, not just the title"
    Doesn't it suggest that the content is 'irrelevant' in the context of title? And we should move that content from that article to this article.
    Now about the jew article. I was just mentioning that this topic is some time ignored. It was ignored when jews in europe and even africa were mentioned. Now the structure has changed so that is no longer an issue. But I was refering it as a general trend.
    Now what content I want in this article. Almost in same direction as it is mentioned in jewishvirtuallibrary if that is copyrighted. (I copied the link which suggested that reproduced is allowed). That content will be somewhat irrelevant in american jews. normally the 'relevance' issue is brought when a change is brought which is not liked by most editors. So I found that better solution is to create a whole new article. Instead of wasting time in debating what is 'relevant' or 'irrelevant'. Zain 02:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or, if there is any useful content and the edit history should be retained, merge and redirect. Duplicates/overlaps topics that already exist in the Wikipedia. --BM 14:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No useful content to merge with many better articles. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary article duplication. Megan1967 01:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Jewish American and/or History of the Jews in the United States. -Sean Curtin 01:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm totally confused. This has both a copyvio notice and further content. I thought that was never supposed to happen: if the copyvio notice is there, any rewrite should be at Jews in USA/Temp. Given this, I have no idea what we are voting on. I will check back later. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:17, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am also not sure. I think first copy problem should be solved after that we should continue voting process. If the copy problem is solved positively. Then the argument of duplication goes. I think copy problem should be solved first and after that it should be again put for vfd Zain 02:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Del for reasons already given, if not copyvio. --Jerzy(t) 03:43, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  • Delete Zain, you're causing chaos. SlimVirgin 09:20, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete duplicate information. This article doesn't add anything beyond what is listed in other articles (such as Jewish American and History of the Jews in the United States]. --Deathphoenix 04:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentatively Delete (or merge anything actually unique). Nothing has happened to alleviate my previous confusion, but I have seen no clear explanation why this should be retained or what purpose is served by separating this out from Jewish American. If a cogent explanation of this is provided, I might change my vote, but as far as I can tell, Zain has not stated purpose for this separate article and is just creating unnecessary confusion. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:49, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Copy-vio aspects of this discussion:
  1. This page is not empowered by make copyvio decisions.
  2. Copy-vio discussion is therefore off-topic here, and a disruption of the VfD process.
  3. The previous discussion of copy-vio does not cast doubt on any votes, since no one gave copy-vio as the reason for their vote.
  4. It has long been policy (but i have made no effort to be sure there have been no changes) that the introduction of copyright-protected material cannot be remedied by removal of the problematic material from the article by editing, so it requires the special permissions needed to remove it from the history as well.
  5. The reason for prohibiting editing of a page under copy-vio consideration is that it is impractical to extract the new contributions from every copy-vio-ed page, leading to loss of those contributions. Thus
    1. Those who edit an article that already contains a Copy-vio notice deserve to have their contribs go to waste.
    2. Those who edit an article after the introduction of material that is later determined to be copyright protected, but before the Copy-vio notice is added, may have a legitimate gripe; i don't know if there is a solution in practice, but they should discuss the situation with someone experienced with copy-vio handling.
  6. In the case of this page, post-copyvio-notice editing has apparently already begun, and taking it off VfD won't fix that.
  7. I am adding this article to the copy-vio page, on the basis that there are disputed opinions here of copy-vio, and that is where the expertise on what is or isn't a violation is assembled. (Copyright law is a matter for experts, despite opinions of others that they understand everything about it.)
  8. If the article is voted for deletion under VfD (which seems likely, given the 9-Del/1-Keep tally), and completes before a copyvio decision is reached (which seems plausible, with a little over 3 days left), the copy-vio consideration becomes moot.
  9. Therefore (and especially since there is no agreement about the copyvio being real), IMO this VfD should continue.
  10. Two interested editors delayed voting under the influence of the copy-vio confusion, and others may have been put off by it without saying so. Therefore if any additional Keep votes from well-established registered users come by the end of the 28th, the possibility of the misguided discussion changing the result becomes plausible, and i will re-link this page so discussion continues until the end of the 30th, as if it had been nominated today, so there is no question of it being deleted without 5 full days of consideration.
  11. I will transfer the copy-vio discussion presently on this page, where it is an irrelevant distraction and impediment, to the copy-vio page, replacing it with a note and link to its new location.
  • Regarding what we are voting on:
  • This page is not empowered to make or act upon decisions about whether a copyvio has occurred.
  • Any vote on VfD is a vote on whether the title in question should continue to be the title of a page on WP.
  • Many voters chose to vote something instead of, or in addition to, Keep or Delete; in effect such votes are additional guidance available to future editors about what the community will tolerate. (E.g., a consensus to "Keep as Redirect" is compelling evidence that the redirect may not be converted back to an article.)
--Jerzy(t) 21:45, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Tally (As of 19:55, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC))

  • Delete
    1. Carrp 01:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (As nominator)
    2. Wyss 07:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    3. BM 14:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) ("or merge and redirect..."; see main body of this page.)
    4. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    5. Megan1967 01:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    6. Sean Curtin 01:59, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC) ("Merge and redirect", to be precise; see main body of this page.)
    7. Jerzy(t) 03:43, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
    8. SlimVirgin 09:20, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
    9. Deathphoenix 04:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
    1. Zain 02:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_in_USA&oldid=49773420"