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. Wily D 15:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Shabbos App

Shabbos App (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This article was initially created by the creators of the purported app. Though other editors later added sources which talked about the "app" during the week in which it was the "topic de jour" on many Jewish websites, they were all predicated on the Kickstarter campaign which had been created for the potential app. Since then, the creators of the Kickstarter campaign have ended that campaign, and have in fact stated publically that they only started the campaign in the first place to gauge interest in such an app. There is no indication that the app actually exists, or ever will. While it might make sense to mention this Internet event in a section of an article on technological innovations in Orthodox Judaism, it certainly is not notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• DELETE Product doesn't exist yet and the article is all based on WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:GOSSIP - not what an encyclopedia is about. Jytdog ( talk) 21:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 22:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC) IZAK ( talk) 22:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The topic easily passes WP:GNG having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. It's inconsequential whether or not the app has been released or even if it's a hoax, as topic notability is based upon source coverage, the reliability of sources and depth of coverage. Source examples include:

– NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Struck part of my !vote above. It is not a hoax, per this primary source. Futhermore, per this source, the developers "are planning to release the app with full functionality on Dec first on Google Play." NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Northamerica1000: "It's inconsequential whether or not the app has been released or even if it's a hoax, as notability is based upon source coverage." In simple words, even if it is a hoax, it is a notable hoax. Debresser ( talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep because 1 the article cites sufficient WP:V & WP:RS, and adheres to WP:NPOV, to make it basically WP:N regardless if it was a trial balloon or has yet to see the light of day it has sparked serious attention and 2 because it relates to serious core issues of Shabbat-observant Orthodox young Jews who are nevertheless addicted to texting and communicating with each other on Shabbat with their smart phones hence the interest in this innovation. 3 So this is not a "hoax" nor is it a form of "crystal balling" rather it's something to be treated more in the spirit of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE. 4 This AfD comes within days of the first AfD being closed as lacking consensus to delete, meaning there was enough of a WP:CONSENSUS to keep the article and not delete it. Therefore, one can only conclude that 5 the nominator appears very upset that his arguments and POV did not carry the day first time around and now wants to keep the arguments going, that does seem rather WP:POINTY and engaging in borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior to achieve on the fly what was not achieved after almost a month that the 1st AfD lasted. 6 Note that way out Theories, even non-existent Faeries and invisible Ghosts, get their own elaborate WP articles even if they never make an appearance in the real world right away or ever. 7 The nominator is advised to read up on WP:SPIDERMAN and cool it. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 22:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, the first AfD lacking consensus to delete does not mean there was consensus to keep it. Lacking one or another, an AfD fails. Furthermore, as stated in this renomination, they have closed their Kickstarter since that AfD was closed, which changes things considerably. As for notability, Zev Farber's denial of the Revelation at Sinai got vastly more coverage in reliable sources than this thing did during the brief week it was being talked about, yet I don't think anyone would accept an article called Zev Farber's denial of the revelation at Sinai. Would you? - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is an article about a future product from a vendor with no track record. In general, we should try to not let Wikipedia be used for promotion. Deleting the article now would be appropriate. We can revisit this if and when the thing ships. It's supposed to ship on 1 DEC 2014, so we'll know then. Waiting will also resolve the "hoax" issue. This is an encyclopedia; there's no big rush. John Nagle ( talk) 23:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Another alternative, if it turns out to be real, is a merge into Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law#Telephones. -- John Nagle ( talk) 04:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

There's no "hoax issue." It is clearly covered by RSs. That's what we rely on. Of course, we have editors who think that all sorts of things, including Obama's place of birth, are hoaxes ... but we go with the RSs. Are you aware that even when there are in fact hoaxes, we have many wp articles that cover them, if the RS coverage is there? -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close  The previous AfD was closed on October 19.  No reason has been given in the nomination for such a quick renomination.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

That's actually not true. Since that AfD, the Kickstarter that started this whole thing was closed by the people who created it. That seems like a very good reason for a renom. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 02:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close or Keep. Or procedural keep. Per Unscintillating -- obviously, we don't re-open AfDs days after prior AfDs close, without some new good reason. Which is absent here. And Keep per the above Keeps. Clearly meets GNG, despite the nom's suppositions and OR, which litter her edit summaries, talk page discussion, and prior AfD comments. Epeefleche ( talk) 01:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Why do you say it's absent? They closed their own Kickstarter. This is nothing but an exercise in using social media and Wikipedia for publicity. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 02:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Have you read that the developers closed their kickstarter? Can you point to RS coverage of that, or are are you looking only at a kickstarter page? And have you read that they are coming out with the product earlier than when they were depending on their kickstarter? And have you read that they are lowering the price? And who cares anyway -- the planned product, not the kickstarter, garnered the RS coverage. And what is the basis (yet again) for your blanket assertion that this article was initially created by the creators of the purported app -- is that OR, or even worse are you saying that if someone creates a wp name "Obama" and edits the Obama page, they are necessarily him? Maybe it was you, trying to discredit the article; how do we know otherwise. And why does it matter? Especially given that the article is full of RS coverage added by other, well-established editors, who have not the slightest hint of COI. This has substantial RS coverage in two or three continents, in nearly a dozen RS articles devoted to the topic. You are beating a dead horse, yet again, directly after your views were not the consensus views at the prior AfD. Epeefleche ( talk) 03:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It says on the developer's own website that they cancelled (cancelled, not closed) their own Kickstarter. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Now clearly a keep, with additional RS coverage, so may as well close this a Keep to clarify that there should not be another "can't bury the hatchet ... two days later" AfD. As discussed below, cancelling/closing/ending the Kickstarter was not cancelling/closing/ending the product -- just the opposite. Epeefleche ( talk) 00:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

"Cancelled" implies that the proposed app is no longer being developed. The Kickstarter fundraising was the only evidence it WAS ever in development. Without such evidence, all we have is generic talk about what actions on a smartphone can or cannot break religious laws. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 14:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

That is completely false. All it indicates is that the developers are not seeking funding from that source. At the same time, they indicate they are moving forward with development. [1] Epeefleche ( talk) 09:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This topic does not escape Wikipedia's radar. The argument to delete is an argument saying that this topic escapes Wikipedia's radar. The multitude of good quality reliable sources discussing this topic are not concerned that this product does not exist or may not ever exist. Many sources are discussing the theory of such a phone. No, this is not a scientific theory. The sources are discussing whether theoretically a few tweaks to a smartphone can render it compliant with the halacha governing Shabbos permissibility. It is a topic widely covered by good quality sources. That makes this topic compliant with Wikipedia policy which might be brought to bear on whether or not to "keep" this article. In the final analysis the sources are supporting this article. Bus stop ( talk) 01:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete At best in a few months this page can renamed The Shabbos App Hoax. At this point there is no third party evidence that it is ever going to be real. ( Zwolfp ( talk) 02:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)) reply

— Zwolfp ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. Extensive coverage in reliable sources. If nominator thinks it's a one time thing that will die down I would suggest renominating in six months to better gauge its historic impact.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Northamerica1000 and IZAK. -- Yoavd ( talk) 05:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Zwolfp -- but I would say even stronger than Zwolfp suggested: It should be replaced now by a page describing the discussion rather than one describing what was most likely a hoax and at best a couple of people with a dream that they never successfully launched. micha ( talk) 14:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It is neither a "hoax" nor a "dream". It is an effort to find a way to use a cellphone on Shabbos. One cannot do melacha on the Shabbat. The definition of melacha is hazy but as Wikipedia very well says "The thirty-nine melakhot are not so much activities as categories of activity." Cell phone use is very much desired, especially by young people. The phenomenon is noteworthy as evidenced by the multitude of sources responding to the mere suggestion that such an app is in the making. All of the sources weighing in are keenly aware that these "categories of activity" can be broadly or narrowly interpreted. Our article is noting the intellectual curiosity elicited by the proposed app and the multitude of reliable sources weighing in with commentary on it. The sources target specifically this app therefore there should be little reason to subsume the content of his article into a related article. Bus stop ( talk) 06:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the subject of the article does not exist yet. There is not a single review of it as a functioning piece of software. There is not even an independent source that speaks of it as a piece of software in development. (And it would be highly unusual anyway to have a Wikipedia article about unreleased software still in development, - as it would also be unusual to have an article about a film still in production, see Wikipedia:Planned films, or a book still being written.) What we have in this article is a concept for a proposed app - the concept being "what will allow us to use a smart phone on the Sabbath?" and commentary about the answer being "nothing". That commentary would be much better placed in an article about Jewish religious laws regarding the Sabbath. This article is nothing more than promotional advertising for a kickstarter business concept for a smartphone app. If the app is ever released, and is actually used by anyone, and it is notable enough to be reviewed in neutral sources, then maybe then a Wikipedia article can be justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I'd like to add that we already have an article entitled Shabbat module. Perhaps this could be merged into that as a subsection. That way, it's still covered, but without the drastic disproportionate weight of its own article. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 17:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

That article is about something else! Debresser ( talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Now there's a thought. There's already Shabbat module, Sabbath mode, and Shabbat elevator. Are there more related articles? Maybe what's needed is a broader article on "Shabbat workarounds". There's a good article on Halachipedia on "Electricity on Shabbat", which covers all this in one article, including a mention of the Shabbos app. [2] -- John Nagle ( talk) 19:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep Procedural (only a few days after 1st attempt) and because this article is about a notable development and upcoming sofware. Debresser ( talk) 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Procedural keep, In my opinion, it's not beneficial to conduct another AfD so soon. In the first AfD, I suggested selectively merging this into an existing article, either Sabbath mode or Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law#Computers and similar appliances. My suggestion did not carry the day, to put it mildly. Given the energetic split between keeps and deletes, the AfD was closed as "no consensus", effectively defaulting to keep. In my opinion, that close was correct, and I don't think anything has happened yet that warrants such a quick re-opening of the discussion. I haven't seen anything in a reliable source to suggest that the Kickstarter cancellation affects the project's notability one way or the other. The developers say they terminated the campaign because they saw such a strong indication of interest that they intend to have the app ready by December 1. [3] Meanwhile, it appears that the interested community is still discussing the question. So I don't think this is the time for another argument. The continued split of opinion reflected here bears that out; I don't see how we can expect any different result than last time. I think it makes better sense to step back and allow the article to be developed. If the app never appears (or if it does, for that matter) we can revisit the question in six months or so. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nothing has changed. There was no consensus for deletion at the previous AfD, and the ample reliable and verifiable sources from a broad range of references establishes notability. Alansohn ( talk) 02:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Got to shake my head at the Delete voters, who're basing their opposition largely on WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT arguments. Who freaking cares about the app's Kickstarter status, and what does that have to do with Wikipedia guidelines? The subject's discussed at length in high-quality, major media sources. Done deal. This is a GNG pass. Nha Trang 21:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC) reply

The subject you say is discussed at length in high-quality media sources is not the app. Nobody has seen or tested the app - it does not exist as a product. The subject discussed in sources is whether there are ways to make a smart phone allowable to be used on the Sabbath. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 03:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

As the voter above indicates, we should keep the article because of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources, not because anybody has "has seen or tested the app". I'm pretty certain that there is no such thing as a flying saucer and that they are not captained by extraterrestrial beings, yet we have articles on all of those topics. With Halloween just days away, I'm darn near certain that there is no such thing as ghosts, goblins or zombies, but we have actively edited and widely accepted articles about all of these concepts. We even have an article about philosophical zombies, which at best is a hypothetical construct about a kind of undead person who doesn't walk slowly and search for brains to eat. If you're concerned that the Shabbos App article is about a product / service that doesn't exist, just take a look at Category:Vaporware. Regardless of the existence of the app, the reliable and verifiable coverage about is exceedingly real, and that's what matters here. Alansohn ( talk) 17:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

[post AfD comment moved to the talk page, WT:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination).  00:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Procedural keeps

I'd like to suggest that all of the "procedural keep" votes based on the mistaken impression that this 2nd AfD was started too soon after the previous one was closed be disregarded. The fact that the creators of the app aborted their Kickstarter is a significant change in the situation. All of the reliable sources about this "app" were predicated on that Kickstarter, which no longer exists, and that is a reasonable cause for a new AfD. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 14:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

"Cancelled" implies that the proposed app is no longer being developed. The Kickstarter fundraising was the only evidence it WAS ever in development. Without such evidence, all we have is generic talk about what actions on a smartphone can or cannot break religious laws. It is bad enough having an article about a minor piece of software that is still to be released, but an article about the concept for a minor piece of software than will never exist is unsustainable. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 14:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

It states on the app's website here that they plan to release the app on December 1: "With HaShem’s help we are planning to release the app with full functionality on Dec first on Google Play." We will find out whether that is true or not when that date comes. Just because the Kickstarter was canceled does not indicate that the "proposed app is no longer being developed". Natg 19 ( talk) 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

Would you support deleting this article if it isn't released? - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 18:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

There is also the issue that three of the editors who have worked on the article, including the article's creator, appear to be linked to the business that is creating the proposed app and so have a coi. [4] Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 14:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC) reply

• comment Obviously a released product is more likely to be notable, but unreleased products can be notable also. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 23 October 2014 (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.