- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Atziluth
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Atziluth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect: this is an exceptionally minor esoteric religious subject with no real evidence of substantial scholarly coverage as a topic in its own right outside of discussion of the " Four Worlds", where it is already covered and with which it overlaps significantly. Even that article is not in particularly good nick, so anyone interested in producing verifiable, encyclopedic material on the subject would be better off starting there. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Addendum: The term is part of the Four Worlds thematic framework, and is better positioned to be understood by the reader when placed within that context. Iskandar323 ( talk) 05:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Judaism, and Spirituality. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of sources from just the first page of a google search.
𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (
talk) 19:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- We don't go by the miscellanea of Google search. We go be reliable, secondary sources. The first page of google results are quite clearly all unreliable. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like no one is in favor of deleting this article so should it be Kept or Redirected?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is absolutely encyclopedic. The text is derived from an entry in
The Jewish Encyclopedia. This prima facie meets the GNG.
Central and Adams (
talk) 02:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, great point! The article is also one giant
copy vio. Perhaps speedy delete.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Iskandar323, The Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain, so it can't be a copyright violation as you write here and as you erroneously tagged the article. Furthermore, you can't !vote twice.--
Jahaza (
talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's how copyright works for pictures. For text, just because it is free to access does not mean plagiarism is ok.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The text is acknowledged, so no, it is not plagiarism. See:
WP:FREECOPY and
WP:PDCOPY. Frankly, the shifting rationales for deletion with consistent inattention to policy or misunderstanding it on this and related topics are confusing.
approaching WP:CIR.Jahaza ( talk) 05:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)- To be honest, the fact that this material can only be sourced to a single highly specialized encyclopedia is part of the problem - that the material is apparently not paraphrased and just plagiarized verbatim without any quotation or inline citations is an order of magnitude worse.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's absolutely fine that it's copied verbatim from a public domain source with attribution. That's why I suggested you refer to WP:FREECOPY and WP:PDCOPY. The Jewish Encyclopedia is a mainstream source that contributes to many Wikipedia articles, not a highly specialized encyclopedia. Jahaza ( talk) 06:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, the fact that this material can only be sourced to a single highly specialized encyclopedia is part of the problem - that the material is apparently not paraphrased and just plagiarized verbatim without any quotation or inline citations is an order of magnitude worse.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The text is acknowledged, so no, it is not plagiarism. See:
WP:FREECOPY and
WP:PDCOPY. Frankly, the shifting rationales for deletion with consistent inattention to policy or misunderstanding it on this and related topics are confusing.
- That's how copyright works for pictures. For text, just because it is free to access does not mean plagiarism is ok.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Iskandar323, The Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain, so it can't be a copyright violation as you write here and as you erroneously tagged the article. Furthermore, you can't !vote twice.--
Jahaza (
talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, great point! The article is also one giant
copy vio. Perhaps speedy delete.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: per Central and Adams. Public domain sources can be verbatim copied as long as they are attributed. Dr.Pinsky ( talk) 06:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe my argument wasn't clear. The point is that if a subject has an article in any reliable encyclopedia then it's encyclopedic for our purposes. This is sufficient evidence that it meets the GNG. Furthermore, there are plenty of sources other than the Jewish Encyclopedia. Just click on the JSTOR search link above to see some.
Central and Adams (
talk) 09:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Jewish Encyclopedia material is broadly Public Domain because it is more than 100 years old, so it is extremely dated scholarship on top of being highly specialist and hardly indicative of broad notability. Multiple reliable, specific, secondary sources are still required to establish
WP:NBASIC here.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Click on your own JSTOR search link. Also you're wrong about GNG. These are misguided nominations and you ought to withdraw them all.
Central and Adams (
talk) 10:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, they are extremely unencyclopedic articles with a similarly insubstantial parent article and no active editors.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- None of which are deletion criteria, so you ought to withdraw your nominations.
Central and Adams (
talk) 10:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The deletion criteria here is no serious references in the past 100 years beyond extremely trivial mentions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- None of which are deletion criteria, so you ought to withdraw your nominations.
Central and Adams (
talk) 10:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, they are extremely unencyclopedic articles with a similarly insubstantial parent article and no active editors.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Click on your own JSTOR search link. Also you're wrong about GNG. These are misguided nominations and you ought to withdraw them all.
Central and Adams (
talk) 10:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Jewish Encyclopedia material is broadly Public Domain because it is more than 100 years old, so it is extremely dated scholarship on top of being highly specialist and hardly indicative of broad notability. Multiple reliable, specific, secondary sources are still required to establish
WP:NBASIC here.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect the four to English translations (though I forgot what they are, one description I recall, which though wasn't likeley from primary source, might be something like spiritual, mental, astral, material worlds/planes).-- dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆( talk 02:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG, particularly the sources discussed by Central and Adams. The nominator's suggestion that old sources don't count is just wrong. All four of these related articles should be kept. Jacona ( talk) 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Atziluth
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Atziluth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect: this is an exceptionally minor esoteric religious subject with no real evidence of substantial scholarly coverage as a topic in its own right outside of discussion of the " Four Worlds", where it is already covered and with which it overlaps significantly. Even that article is not in particularly good nick, so anyone interested in producing verifiable, encyclopedic material on the subject would be better off starting there. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Addendum: The term is part of the Four Worlds thematic framework, and is better positioned to be understood by the reader when placed within that context. Iskandar323 ( talk) 05:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Judaism, and Spirituality. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Plenty of sources from just the first page of a google search.
𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (
talk) 19:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
- We don't go by the miscellanea of Google search. We go be reliable, secondary sources. The first page of google results are quite clearly all unreliable. Iskandar323 ( talk) 19:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like no one is in favor of deleting this article so should it be Kept or Redirected?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep This is absolutely encyclopedic. The text is derived from an entry in
The Jewish Encyclopedia. This prima facie meets the GNG.
Central and Adams (
talk) 02:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, great point! The article is also one giant
copy vio. Perhaps speedy delete.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Iskandar323, The Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain, so it can't be a copyright violation as you write here and as you erroneously tagged the article. Furthermore, you can't !vote twice.--
Jahaza (
talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- That's how copyright works for pictures. For text, just because it is free to access does not mean plagiarism is ok.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The text is acknowledged, so no, it is not plagiarism. See:
WP:FREECOPY and
WP:PDCOPY. Frankly, the shifting rationales for deletion with consistent inattention to policy or misunderstanding it on this and related topics are confusing.
approaching WP:CIR.Jahaza ( talk) 05:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)- To be honest, the fact that this material can only be sourced to a single highly specialized encyclopedia is part of the problem - that the material is apparently not paraphrased and just plagiarized verbatim without any quotation or inline citations is an order of magnitude worse.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's absolutely fine that it's copied verbatim from a public domain source with attribution. That's why I suggested you refer to WP:FREECOPY and WP:PDCOPY. The Jewish Encyclopedia is a mainstream source that contributes to many Wikipedia articles, not a highly specialized encyclopedia. Jahaza ( talk) 06:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- To be honest, the fact that this material can only be sourced to a single highly specialized encyclopedia is part of the problem - that the material is apparently not paraphrased and just plagiarized verbatim without any quotation or inline citations is an order of magnitude worse.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The text is acknowledged, so no, it is not plagiarism. See:
WP:FREECOPY and
WP:PDCOPY. Frankly, the shifting rationales for deletion with consistent inattention to policy or misunderstanding it on this and related topics are confusing.
- That's how copyright works for pictures. For text, just because it is free to access does not mean plagiarism is ok.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- @
Iskandar323, The Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain, so it can't be a copyright violation as you write here and as you erroneously tagged the article. Furthermore, you can't !vote twice.--
Jahaza (
talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, great point! The article is also one giant
copy vio. Perhaps speedy delete.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: per Central and Adams. Public domain sources can be verbatim copied as long as they are attributed. Dr.Pinsky ( talk) 06:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe my argument wasn't clear. The point is that if a subject has an article in any reliable encyclopedia then it's encyclopedic for our purposes. This is sufficient evidence that it meets the GNG. Furthermore, there are plenty of sources other than the Jewish Encyclopedia. Just click on the JSTOR search link above to see some.
Central and Adams (
talk) 09:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Jewish Encyclopedia material is broadly Public Domain because it is more than 100 years old, so it is extremely dated scholarship on top of being highly specialist and hardly indicative of broad notability. Multiple reliable, specific, secondary sources are still required to establish
WP:NBASIC here.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Click on your own JSTOR search link. Also you're wrong about GNG. These are misguided nominations and you ought to withdraw them all.
Central and Adams (
talk) 10:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, they are extremely unencyclopedic articles with a similarly insubstantial parent article and no active editors.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- None of which are deletion criteria, so you ought to withdraw your nominations.
Central and Adams (
talk) 10:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The deletion criteria here is no serious references in the past 100 years beyond extremely trivial mentions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- None of which are deletion criteria, so you ought to withdraw your nominations.
Central and Adams (
talk) 10:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, they are extremely unencyclopedic articles with a similarly insubstantial parent article and no active editors.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Click on your own JSTOR search link. Also you're wrong about GNG. These are misguided nominations and you ought to withdraw them all.
Central and Adams (
talk) 10:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Jewish Encyclopedia material is broadly Public Domain because it is more than 100 years old, so it is extremely dated scholarship on top of being highly specialist and hardly indicative of broad notability. Multiple reliable, specific, secondary sources are still required to establish
WP:NBASIC here.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 10:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep or redirect the four to English translations (though I forgot what they are, one description I recall, which though wasn't likeley from primary source, might be something like spiritual, mental, astral, material worlds/planes).-- dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆( talk 02:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG, particularly the sources discussed by Central and Adams. The nominator's suggestion that old sources don't count is just wrong. All four of these related articles should be kept. Jacona ( talk) 14:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- 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.