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. One tangential link does not an article make. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Networking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Pure advertising. No information about notability, and a good amount of original research. Kariteh 11:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• • Comment Don't see how this is advertising. The Jewish Agency, Birthright and Nefesh are governmental and non-profit entities. Myrusal 09:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their corporate status is irrelevant from an advertising standpoint. Sidatio 16:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing that suggests that Jewish networking is a particularly notable type of networking. Propaniac 12:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment Nothing reflects a clearer, more distinct and noble pattern of Jewish networking than that the Jewish people have their own "Jewish calendar." Dynablu 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jews not not social network any more than any other group (which I am sure also have website for them). I would not object to Social network service being expanding to note how some sites are limited to certain groups or interests. Jon513 13:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I had started out thinking the material could be merged into Social networking. But subsequent edits have so blurred the article's focus that this no longer seems possible.-Barte 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:OR. If cleaned up and sourced, could be a subsection of Social networking or something similar as previously mentioned. Sidatio 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I teach sociology in Israel. As any of my students and all students of sociology know every culture has its own system beliefs, norms and values. This includes their own particular channels for networking. The New York Times recently wrote on how religious groups are now entering the Net to social network Web Space Where Religion and Social Networking Meet.

Pat Robertson and Billy Graham can teach us all something about Christian networking. Aldavid 06:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)³[reply]

• Keep as per New York Times. Suggest article should be renamed Jewish Social Networking. Myrusal 09:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NYT piece, "Web Space Where Religion and Social Networking Meet", covers Christian, Muslim & Jewish social networking sites. That's how the topic could be treated under the Social networking article. Barte 10:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page offers excellent insights into aspects of "Jewish Geography". Judaism survived for 2,000 years in the diaspora and was helped by the ability to network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehovot (talk • contribs) 15:17, August 2, 2007

We're not here to discuss the resiliency of the Jewish faith (not to mention the previous statement is pure original research). The fact remains that this article simply doesn't have the sources or notability to distinguish itself from any other kind of social networking. Sidatio 16:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Precisely where the New York Times states: "Web Space Where Religion and Social Networking Meet", is at that point we have a special and unique phonomenas taking place entitled Jewish networking, Christian networking and Islamic networking. As stated above, Judaism as other religions incorporates a different historical and cultural background from Christianity and Islam, where networking nodes are created from specific sociological parameters. The mere fact that Jews, Christians and Muslims are different from one another distinguishes these groups as other kinds of social networking. They are not and cannot ever be the same. Dynablu 18:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religions aside, it's all still social networking. The fatal flaw with this article is the lack of notability. We simply don't have verifiable notations from reliable sources. Yes, we have an article in the New York Times. However, this article covers religious social networking. As a result, it doesn't afford the concept significant coverage as required by notability guidelines.

You can argue based on faith all you like, but the bottom line is simple: The article fails WP:OR and WP:N guidelines, and presently reads like advertising for a bunch of websites. If it can be cleaned up, sure, merge what you can with social networking. But given the distinct lack of notability, I just don't see that happening. Sidatio 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the general media, there are dozens of academic articles which address Jewish networking i.e. - Journal of Jewish Studies and "The Weakness of Strong Organizations," in Jewish Networking: Linking People, Institutions, Community, Hayim Herring and Barry Schrage (eds.). Boston and Los Angeles: The Susan & David Wilstein Institute of Jewish Policy Studies, 2001, pp 71-76., which clearly note both WP:OR and WP:N guidelines. Jewish networking as Christian networking are sub topics of social networking. No different from cars, clothes or food - where Wikipedia describes the different sub species. Dynablu 04:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a single oblique reference (among divergent others) in the NYT does not connote notability. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's one of those articles where the word "Jewish" could be replaced by pretty much any affinity group name, and the details slightly changed; nothing at all is special about Jewish networking, any more than Pagan networking, Irish networking, Christian networking, etc. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per NYT article, the jewish networking is also itself of unique differences to others. Mathmo ^Talk 23:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Care to expound on this line of thought, Mathmo? I don't see what you're getting at here. Sidatio 23:40, 7 August 2007 (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.