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. Heck of a long read, and with SPAs involved a little bit difficult to draw a completely unbiased consensus. However, the keep !voters have made a solid point that these parshas are an intrinsic part in Jewish tradition, one which, as a simple matter of fact of what they are, will involve retelling liturgical background, such as the story of Noah here. This article should be improved with critical commentary, a point well-raised by delete !voters.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noach (parsha)[edit]

Noach (parsha) (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)

Article appears to be a POVFORK of Noah, Noah's Ark, Genesis creation narrative and Flood myth. It has no references cited to support the text (though it does have external links listed inline, going to bible verses, throughout, and it does have extensive "further reading"). The article is also written in an explicitly in-universe POV, describing the book of genesis in wikipedia's voice as though uncontested history. I have read through the article, and am not sure there is any content which can be salvaged to be merged with the other articles. I don't expect this to be controversial, but it seems to me that other editors should also review the article to see if I've missed anything, so XfD seemed more appropriate than a prod. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appear to be a lot of these kinds of articles. A lot of work was obviously put into these, but they seem to be poorly sourced, duplicate content, and in violation of our neutrality policies in terms of their style; in other words, they all appear to be POVFORKS. Here are a few. Pinchas (parsha), Balak (parsha), Chukat, Korach (parsha), Shlach. There's at least 43. They were all created by User:Dauster in 2006 (I've already notified him of this discussion). I'm not really sure what to do here. I don't want to XfD all 43+ of them. I suppose we may have to go through one by one after this discussion closes, and see what to do in each case.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to agree here, they're all clearly unsourced POV articles that do not present alternative views, do not have sources to backup their anaysis/meaning sections, and read pretty much like religious study guides and not an encyclopedic article, Weekly_Torah_portion#Table_of_weekly_readings all of those are problems, not just this one, possibly amend the AFD to include them all? Not sure they need deleted though, but DEFINITELY gutted and properly sourced and brought to look more like encyclopedia articles. We don't need a verse-by-verse interpretation and explanation of the entire Torah which it appears to be now. — raekyt 13:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This and the associated other 53 articles in this series describe Torah readings in the annual cycle of Jewish Torah readings. There are numerous sources cited to classical Jewish historical documents like the Talmud, Mishnah, and Midrash. There is substantial content and focus here that are not present in the other articles cited by the nominator, as those articles do not address the subject's significance to the annual cycle of Torah readings. Destruction of this article, which has existed separately and with acceptance since 2005, would eliminate useful and separate content. -- Dauster (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not a POVFORK. It is one of 54 articles on the Weekly_Torah_portion. The articles discuss Jewish exegetical readings of the weekly Torah portions as subjects unto themselves, and are not attempts to evade WP:POV. There is superficial overlap between this article and Noah but the focus here is to explain the content of the Jewish exegetical readings, not to explain Genesis in Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.186.139 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What we have here is a name collision. This is not a POV fork - it's about the Weekly Torah portion (or parshah in Hebrew), which has the name Noah. The weekly reading contains the story of Noah, but the article is about the weekly reading, not the story of the man and his boat. Take a look at other articles on parshahs like Shemot (parsha), Shoftim (parsha) and Pinchas (parsha). In the case of the last one, the parsha contains most (but not all) of the story of Phinehas, as well as some other content. It will obviously differ from the article on Phinehas, but that doesn't mean it's a POV fork - it means it's about a different thing. --Bachrach44 (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Maybe this will help explain it. The torah is divided into 54 chapters. Each chapter has a name (although they could have simply been numbered 1-54, but where the fun in that?) This is about the chapter of the torah which has the name Noah. Pretend that it's simply called "torah chapter 2" and you'll clearly see that it's not a POV fork. --Bachrach44 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the series of Parshas an invaluable help to me when I try to understand the Jewish liturgical year ( it, the weekly readings of the Torah.) Separating one entry from all its affiliated entries, and then criquing its 'thoreoughness', seems to me equivalen to taking one chapter of Moby-Dick, say on whales, and critiquing it as having no beginning or end of plot. What the author of this entry has done is -- over many years -- put gether the annual cycle of Torah portions/readings, the Parshas, so that a knowledgeable (or not knowledgeable) reader of Wikipedia has access to the whole of the Torah as it is read, and studied, in the living religion. Sure, we give awards (or people do not get awards) for each stage in the Tour de France, but the sum total -- the Tour itself -- is much more than its parts. The same holds for this grealty iinformative series of commentaries -- which is complete, and as anyone who goes deeper (as I ahve, in tha past) will find, is updated often by its original author. -- Huck Gutman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.89.149 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dauster works in the white house u.s. senate, according to his user page, 156.33.89.149 is an IP address for the United States Senate... 96.241.126.33 & 71.174.186.139 are Verizon IP addresses for Ashburn, Virginia, as close as you can get to DC and not be DC (cell phones?). Possibly a bit of local canvasing, seems extremely odd 3 brand new IP editors show up to defend this editor and his pages and all are so connected geographically, Geolocate puts these IP's different locations, ones pretty close to DC though, still strange that this much anonymous support jumping in here so quickly... — raekyt 13:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok this is the second third IP editor that has never edited before showing up here to defend the creator of these pages.... interesting. Huck, this is an encyclopedia, not a religious study website, we don't need unabridged textual critiques of literature here, that's WP:NOT what wikipedia is about, these 52 articles (And I likely more articles Dauster has created, are not encyclopedia entries for this. I'm not saying the Jewish liturgical year isn't worthy of inclusion, but we don't need entire textual crituqes of every verse of the entire Torah here, and that's what this is pretty much. I'm not convinced we need a page for every one of these, one page for them all is probably all that an encyclopedia needs. — raekyt 13:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find all these mysterious first time editors annoying too, but don't let the "supporters" distract you from the cause. There is a page for each Sura (see Template:Sura), why should this be any different? Each one on it's own has been subject to significant independent coverage and treatment over the years, they are certainly notable. --Bachrach44 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By just looking at a few of them (there are a lot of them) they appear to be fairly small and obviously not a verse-by-verse critique as these appear to be. I would have less of an issue for a page for each if it was limited to overviews and universal unbiased opinion and WELL sourced, but as it is now it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic and more like a study guide for the religion. That's WP:NOT what wikipedia is about. Even if the decision is to keep this article, it will still likely need to be severely gutted and whittled down to an encyclopedic article. There's another issue is that this is essentially just the books of the bible with Jewish slant to their interpretation, why couldn't these views be put into the articles about each book? That's where the main issue of the POVFORK is I think, we already have articles about these books... these views should probably go into them? — raekyt 17:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep. I am opposed to the deletion of this Wikepedia article. This is not POVFORK. Over the years, I just used it for Torah class presentation and for finding additional documentation. I find it inspirational, well-written, and usedul for those of us who are Jewish. Probably the person who wants to delete this article does not understand that this and the associated other 53 articles in this series describe Torah readings in the annual cycle of Jewish Torah readings. I must state that I do not quite understand what is the problem. I can only say that to me this article and the other 53 articles are invaluable to me because they are not just explain my tradition but help me to formulate questions and to be challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caswellm (talk • contribs) 13:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep. This article and those on the other Torah portions represent the best of modern thinking applied to historic scholarship, encouraging us to question, reexamine and study further. I have used them for Torah study here in the middle of nowhere because they do not push a particular agenda. I think this is a work of exceptional scholarship, well within the Wiki scope.

--72.78.45.217 (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Responding to Yoninah, the fact of their being a mitzvah in no way is evidence that the material in question meets wikipedia's guidelines and policies. There are, in fact, other places that this material could be included, as I said earlier. But wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not necessarily a location which exists to allow men to meet their religious obligations. The above comment, in fact, while clearly making assumptions, does not in fact offer any evidence that the material meets the basic policies and guidelines, which I suggest others might read before further commenting. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he struck the comment already before you posted this. The number of ips and new users with no other edits is concerning. I don't know what's going on, but it's no wonder someone is thinking about possible explanations.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He only partially struck the comment - the irrelevant and incorrect job information remains. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only brought it up because I saw the possibility of a link, maybe more with all these new SPA and IP's showing up here, it's obviously not relevant content wise to the discussion but for other issues like WP:CANVAS and WP:SOCK it may be relevant, a SPI has already been opened apparently on this issue. I can care less what he does for a living, but I do care about a QUICK influx of new editors flooding in indicating canvassing of some kind took place, at least to me it seems. — raekyt 16:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even is the decision goes against me, I will concede now that this has to be an all or none proposition regarding all articles in Category:Weekly_Torah_readings. It would just look bizarre and haphazard to delete some and leave others. If we need to change the listing to include the whole cat and refocus the conversation appropriately, then we should do so. --Bachrach44 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this discussion should be about all of them, the same concerns exist in all of them that this AFD is for. — raekyt 17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, we're not proposing that Parsha be deleted, nor are we proposing that notable views about the parsha be excluded from WP. I think we're saying that we don't need a line-by-line description of Noah's ark here (particularly with unsourced commentary) when we already have Noah and Noah's ark which cover the material. That content should be in wikipedia, but this article duplicates it unnecessarily, and per WP:CFORK, that's not ideal. The question is, should in-depth, detailed coverage of Noah be in the Noah article, or an article about the Parsha? The answer should not be both, particularly so when the latter is providing in-universe commentary on the subject without any sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wholehearted agreement. There are basically two issues here. One, is each reading notable in and of itself, which in this context would mean is the reading itself sufficiently notable as an entity unto itself to have separate articles. Well, without any sources, it is hard not to think that the answer is "No." This is not saying that the material could not be included in other existing articles, for instance, on the Biblical stories or texts themselves. In fact, in many cases, there already seems to be content relating to each of these readings in another article. The only way I could see that the notability policy requirement could be met is if reliable sources were produced which clearly and explicitly demonstrated that the readings per se met notability requirements. Reliable sources on the story of Noah, for instance, are not the same as reliable sources for a reading about Noah. And, yes, the lack of clearly established notability of these readings as themselves is sufficient grounds for the deletion of the articles from wikipedia.
Second, do these articles, basically, constitute POV forks? So far as I can tell, the answer to that will almost certainly be, now and into the future, yes. It is hard, if not impossible, for me to imagine that someone investigating "claims of the paranormal", or an archaeologist, or whatever, will refer explicitly to a specific ceremonial Jewish text from the Bible rather than the Biblical text in the broader sense. In that sense, these articles would seem to be inherent POV forks. Having said all that, as has already been said, wikipedia is not the only site out there. There are other Wikimedia Foundation sites, like Wikibooks, which do not have the same policies and guidelines, and I am all but certain that this material might well be acceptable in one or more of them. But I cannot see how these articles, particularly without specific references, meet policy and guideline requirements. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noach seems to be getting a lot of attention as a POV fork because of all the other articles related to the story listed above. Is this argument limited to Noach or do you believe that all the articles in the same cat are inherently POV forks? If the latter, can you tell me what, say, Kedoshim is a POV fork of? --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Book of Leviticus, these are readings of the Torah, and we have pages for every book of it, so it's a POVFORK as well for each of those pages. — raekyt 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Observation These same articles exist in the German, Hebrew, and French Wikipedias. I know this isn't a hard and fast criteria for anything, but it's just an indicator. --Bachrach44 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those projects have absolutely zero relevance here, just as WP:OTHERCRAP isn't a valid argument. Also WP:OTHERLANGS. — raekyt 18:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please, per Caswellm, Dauster, Bachrach44, Alansohn, Cullen328 and Arxiloxos’ explanations. As a Christian, I find the articles on the Weekly Torah Portions very helpful in understanding and appreciating Judaism, Jewish religious practices, and interpretations of scripture. I particularly enjoy the images assembled in each article--they help to bring the biblical text alive for me--as well as many useful links to further reading and commentaries that I go to for addition study. Please KEEP these articles. Virgil11 (talk • 18:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC) --Virgil11 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the redirect. Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all the keep vote reasons already given. I too find the Weekly Torah portions helpful and elucidating the Jewish interpretations for the same reasons amply given above. As a side note, "POVFORK" harks back to a time some years ago when there was a lot of clamor about only having one "official" macro-article for an entire subject, to supposedly present a "take" on every pov together. That movement has largely failed since then IMO, because wikipedia today is chock full of specialized articles that could potentially be described as POVFORKS (for instance, Islamic view of Noah). Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess I don't entirely understand why some of the editors writing here wish so strongly to find grounds to delete articles on the Weekly Torah Portions. To someone Jewish, the individual Weekly Torah Portions are certainly notable per se. The traditional commentaries not only cover the textual contents of the Portions, but also, their order, placement, thematic unity, and so forth. They have individual identity beyond consisting of a certain number of pages or chapters in Biblical books. In fact, in Jewish tradition, they are actually considered a more appropriate division of the Torah's text than the customary chapters, which are later and of Christian origin.
Hebrew Wikipedia contains, for example, separate articles on Noah (the person/character/prophet/what have you--I'm not trying to pick fights here) and the Weekly Torah Portion of Noah (or Parashat Noah). Both of the articles in Hebrew, as it happens, are far shorter than their English Wikipedia counterparts, owing in substantial part to the inclusion of much less in the way of Christian-oriented source material in the Hebrew version. (And I appreciate that other Wiki-projects are not directly relevant, but I will tell you that as a model Hebrew Wikipedia handles them successfully in parallel, and with minimal duplication.)
Rather these consisting of a POV FORK, I would more describe them as a change in the level of focus and detail–a 10,000-ft. view, if you will, rather than a 30,000-ft. view. And while it is probably inevitable that an article on a Weekly Portion would tend to a Jewish-oriented POV, I think there are plenty of places in plenty of articles for different POV on Biblical topics in general. No one is looking to hide anything or promote an agenda.
So let me propose the following:
1. These articles are immediately renamed from * (parsha) to * (Weekly Torah Reading), because some people don't know what a "Parsha" is.
2. Over a bit of a longer stretch of time--and that might be a year, if, for example, one of these happens per week--let's let Dauster and others work to pull things apart a bit. I think it is reasonable to reduce duplication where it exists; not everything about Noah the person must also be included in Noah the Weekly Portion.
3. I would make the focus of the revised articles on Readings themselves more their general flow: their content (briefly), the reason they start and stop where they do, the juxtaposition of their characters, and so forth. It doesn't eliminate duplication, but it reduces it. (Example, for Lech Lecha, full coverage of Abraham's, or Lot's, or Sarah's personality wouldn't be appropriate. Enough coverage so that the reader would then understand why Abraham's and Lot's going their separate ways is significant within the reading would be.)
I'd appreciate some thoughtful response. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think there is the basic point of policy. The fact that some people find the parsha notable per se means nothing if they cannot find reliable sources on them, and, apparently, at least on this article, none have yet been found. Certainly, there are no clear "references" that I can see, but rather just a list of further readings. I am a Catholic, and I could say on the same basis that each and every one of our biannual Biblical readings is probably at least as notable as the parsha readings, considering that approximately 1 billion living people are members of that body, considerably more than the total number of practitioners of Judaism. That is one of the obvious, and I think most problematic, details here. If we keep one group's biblical readings on the undemonstrated assumption that they meet notability, and like I said, as yet there is no clear evidence of notability in the articles, can anyone give me good reasons to not have separate articles on the Catholic biblical readings, or the possibly multiple different Lutheran readings, or the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox readings, or those of any and all other religious groups with a set program of Biblical readings? I could easily imagine several hundred, if not maybe even thousands, of such articles being created if there is a single precedent, like this one. Regarding keeping the articles for a year for them to be cleared up, I think a better solution, which is both more in line with policy and guidelines and precedent, would be to move the articles into userspace so that they can be cleaned up there before being moved back into main article space. I can see some possibility that there might be one or more salvagable articles out of all this, but, honestly, even that is an assumption that work which has apparently not yet been done, over several years of the articles' existence, will be done in the future. I can't see any really logical reason to make that assumption. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the above assertion, there are references inline in the text. They are to the Babylonian Talmud, Genesis Rabbah, and other sources that report what the classical Rabbis said about the Torah reading. These are the most authoritative sources available for the classical interpretation of the reading. -- Dauster (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. However, they do nothing to establish the notability of the subject unless they are clearly and explicitly discussing the reading as the reading. If they are discussing the reading as the reading in a way which could not be added to any other extant articles, then I still think that the issues of POVFORK and others that have been mentioned apply. To date, admitting I have not reviewed them myself, I do not see that they have been established to do so. But, if they do not, my apologies. John Carter (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John, within Judaism, the sources Dauster cites–the Talmud, the Midrash Rabbah, and the like–are considered absolutely authoritative and reliable. They are centuries and millenia old, and are still studied regularly in the Jewish community. Whatever one's view is of the authorship of Jewish Scripture, the Talmud and Midrash were not written by the same author as the Torah; indeed, they are the subjects of Wikipedia articles themselves, and are notable in their own right.
John, based on the good work you do in Wikipedia and in the Christianity projects in particular, I am trying very, very hard to assume good faith on your part. But I am having some trouble doing that. If you are going to tell me that something cannot be notable if only Jews consider it notable, or if you are going to tell me that unquestionably important classical Jewish sources do not serve as independent, verifiable references on Jewish subjects, then I have to assume that you are either trying to eliminate Jewish content in Wikipedia or that you are incredibly ignorant of how Judaism works. All the evidence on Wikipedia suggests the opposite, so what gives? Really?
John, there are approximately six million Jews in the United States, and many more Anglophone Jews elsewhere. Roughly speaking–I'm not looking it up–somewhere between 10% and 25% of those Jews would consider themselves Orthodox of one flavor or another, and many more would consider themselves traditional to a greater or lesser extent. At minimum–and I don't concede only the minimum, but I'm arguing it for argument's sake–one million English-speaking Jews exist who would tell you that in no uncertain terms, the Weekly Torah Portions are notable. They are the basis of our study every week of every year. You, frankly, do not have the right to tell them/us that they/we are wrong. And while I do not quite know how many people have to think something is notable enough to make it notable for Wikipedia purposes, the number does not have to be as high as a million.
Finally, concerning your last response to Dauster: People spend their lives learning from the Talmud and the Midrash. You would have a hard time reviewing these sources well enough to determine if they meet your criteria, even if you read Hebrew and Aramaic. You're not the expert; we are, at least relatively speaking. You need to give us a presumption of good faith, too.
John, I'll be honest with you: I personally think the Parsha articles can absolutely stay in Wikipedia, absolutely as they are now, under any criteria you want to name, including inter alia POVFORK. I happen to agree with you and others here that there is probably duplication that could be removed, and I would strongly encourage that. But if you are going to question the notability of the subjects and the objectiveness and verifiability of the sources, I am telling you right now that you are out of line.
StevenJ81 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Steven, first of all, you're overly personalizing this dispute. Please don't do that. I guarantee you that all the editors discussing the deletion of this article are operating in good faith. As far as this sub-discussion is concerned, you are missing a fundamental point. There is a difference between a work, and the content of a work. For example, imagine that I took a copy of the Bible and I cut it up and made a collage. My collage would not have notability just because the bible verses I used to make it were discussed in reliable sources. The fact that collages are notable would not make my collage notable either. We have a case where the Parshas are notable, and the contents they cover are notable, but that doesn't mean this individual work is notable and requires its own article. Do you see the difference? The story of Noah's ark is notable, but the fact that Noah's ark appears in this Parsha is not notable. We need reliable sources indicating why its presence here is notable before we can have an article covering a detailed analysis of each line... much less 53 separate articles doing the same thing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steven, I notice that, in all your repetition of my name above, I have seen nothing that clearly demonstrates that these pages meet WP:N. Steven, are you somehow saying that somehow these pages transcend policy? Steven, I did state above that, if the links included clearly and demonstrably refer to these readings as these readings, and that the material they provide could not fit into any other existing page, then they could be kept. Steven, I'll be honest with you. Wikipedia policies and guidelines basically rule here, not the opinions of self-appointed experts. All that is being asked of any of you is to demonstrate notability as per wikipedia policy. Would it not be more useful, and productive, to provide the sources required by policy, or point out specifically how those sources provide refer to these readings as these readings, than to engage in such lengthy commentary and repetition of other editors' names? As I and others have already stated, there is probably basis for including this material "as is" on one of the other WF sites, which could be linked to here. I cannot see why we are being asked to assume without clearly demonstrated evidence that the subjects are notable because editors say they are. I am very much trying to assume good faith on the part of those editors, but, if the topics were so notable in their own right, I have trouble seeing how there could be so much need to engage in commentary here rather than producing evidence which would clearly establish notability and by so doing end the discussion here on that basis. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move for speedy keep per wp:snow, with a recommendation to do some cleanup. Because in any case that is going to be the outcome of this discussion, and see also WT:Judaism. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not all the votes may be valid, there's WP:SPA issues and an ongoing SPI investigation, secondly the whole issue of POVFORK hasn't really been fully addressed, and obviously we don't go by votes alone, only consensus and validity of the arguments, so even though it looks like a lot of keeps, the reality is it's not a cut-and-dry snow case by a LONG shot. — raekyt 22:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - First, I want to thank Cullen328 for making an attempt to establish notability, which if it were established would end the discussion immediately. I agree it should perhaps be moot to establish notability. The question is whether we would be establishing notability of the torah readings as a specific subject, and I haven't seen any clear evidence that anyone is challenging that, or of the individual "parsha" (or whatever the plural is), or whether any evidence regarding those reviews of the readings would be different from the existing main biblical articles. As I said above, as an example, the Catholic Church has a schedule of readings which repeats every other year. If I had to, I could probably produce some regular publication for priests outlining the meanings of the texts and possible sermons to be based on them, because I know they exist, I've even seen them. But that would not necessarily establish that the texts of the readings as a separate subject unto itself, unless the text included somehow made linkages of the subjects sufficient to establish notability of the various separate readings which could not be included in any other of the existing articles. I have not seen any clear indication that there is evidence of notability of that sort of material. If there is, my apologies. But, having said that, having (years ago, admittedly) somewhat regularly looked through some of the Catholic homiletics publications I mentioned above, I can't see how they would necessarily be able to meet those requirements either. And, like I said, they have a bigger population base, which would probably mean they have a larger number of people to try to find such, as well as a larger group of people for them to be distributed to. All anyone has really been asking is that the evidence of the notability of the subject of this article, as well as that of the other articles, as individual entities be clearly established. With all the people so vocally calling for their being kept, it is somewhat odd in my eyes that, if the subject were so simple to establish, that simpler act has not been done.
  • I still think that it might be possible to move these articles to Wikibooks, or possibly userspace. In either location, they would still be accessible, revisable, and improvable. I honestly cannot see any clear reason why they must remain in wikipedia space if, yes, after six years of existence, their notability still has not been clearly established. That lack of establishing notability may well be seen as particularly significant under the circumstances here. John Carter (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologize to all, and particularly to John Carter for getting personal above. I let my frustrations get the best of me.

I am not at all seeking to substitute policies on notability by pontifications of self-appointed experts, especially me. But sometimes people who know a subject also know when the subject is patently notable or not, and perhaps that expertise is due some extra weight—not outright deference, but extra weight. I appreciate that you and many others here do not think that sources have been provided to prove notability, but if this is because the sources cited are not familiar or accessible to you (plural), then I think you need to be especially cautious when you state that affirming sources have not been provided. And if I say something like "One million Orthodox and other traditional Jews would unquestionably consider the parashiyyot (that's the plural) notable," I'm really not blowing hot air. One can challenge that statement, but if the statement is in fact true, then the topic is notable, because what one million people think is notable is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia.
In support of Cullen328: I just went to Amazon and entered "Weekly Torah Portion" in the search bar. It delivered 1,121 results. I paged through the first three pages containing 48 results; if I counted right 35 were in fact independent publications, rather than editions of the same works. And at least in the first three pages, none of them were editions of classical sources. As you say: Lots of sources; which ones good?
I'm not sure Jess and others aren't right that strictly from a policy perspective, putting these articles into five articles called "Weekly Torah Portions in the Book of ____________" isn't the best approach. I simply think that as a practical matter, it is easier to access the information in these articles if they remain separate than if they are merged.

I'm done. Sorry for being long-winded. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Torah: A Women's Commentary This 1350 page book is on my personal bookshelf and is almost entirely structured around the parashot, with a chapter devoted to each. The section on Noach (parsha) goes from pages 35 to 59, and includes essays by four women scholars on this specific parsha. This book had 13 scholars on its editorial board.
The Women's Torah Commentary: New Insights from Women Rabbis on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions Though I haven't studied this book, it is clear that it reflects a perspective very different from Orthodox Judiasm, which rejects the notion of women becoming rabbis. Every strand of Judiasm studies the individual parashot in detail.
The Language of Truth: The Torah Commentary of the Sefat Emet, Rabbi Yehudah Leib Alter of Ger This translation of the life works of a 19th century Polish Hasidic mystic is organized mainly into individual sections discussing each of the parashot in detail.
Torah Queeries: Weekly Commentaries on the Hebrew Bible This book published by New York University Press contains lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender commentaries on the individual parashot.
Stringing the Pearls: How to Read the Weekly Torah Portion The second sentence of this book is, "The volume of material commenting on and analyzing the 54 slices of the Five Books of Moses is immense, and, happily, continues to proliferate."
The Modern Men's Torah Commentary: New Insights from Jewish Men on the 54 Weekly Torah Portions Since I mentioned two books written from a women's perspective, here's one (of many) written by men. This book is honest enough to admit it.
Essential Torah: A Complete Guide to the Five Books of Moses Although this book is not structured solely around discussion of the individual parashot, the author considers such commentary important enough to devote about one third of the text to commentary on each portion.
This is just a very small sampling of the vast number of reliable sources that discuss each individual parsha as a topic worthy of significant coverage.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other collections of articles on the parshyot include --
If I had a bit of time, I could easily make this a very long list. -- Dauster (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here are a few more of the same sort:
-- Dauster (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, regarding what was said above, there is a difference between a work and the content in the work. We aren't concerned with determining that the story of Noah's ark has received discussion and is notable. We are concerned with determining that the existence of Noah's ark in this particular Parsha is notable. Many of those sources discuss the content of the work, that is, Noah's ark, which is not relevant to this issue. If you could, please provide relevant quotes from those sources above which indicate that Noah's ark, from a Jewish perspective, is distinctly notable from Noah's ark generally. If we do end up keeping these articles, understand that we will have to remove all the duplicate content in them which is already covered in related articles (like Noah, Noah's ark, Book of genesis, Parsha, and so forth). The content you've cited so far can fit into those articles very comfortably. To keep these articles, we need sources to indicate that this topic is distinct (and notable apart from) them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full agreement. I hope the closing administrator takes that into account. There are separate points here. The first is the notability of the Biblical texts which are selected as parsha. No one is necessarily questioning the notability of Biblical stories in any way, shape or form. The second is the notability of the parsha independent of the broader Biblical material they contain. We already have several articles on the Category:Book of Genesis, for instance, and we are supposed to try to avoid duplication of content wherever possible. It does seem that there is a distinct overlap between the existing and potential articles on these Biblical articles and the Parsha articles. In those instances, the articles more clearly and directly on the Bible per se would, clearly, take priority. Therefore, these articles need to establish notability and avoid problems of duplication of content and establish their specific notability through reliable sources which address at some length the parsha readings as a subject independent of their specific content, which would be covered elsewhere. That might be possible, but, seemingly, it hasn't yet apparently been done. And, yes, that additional material might well qualify as being a POV fork in some way.
And, referring back to the Catholic analog I mentioned earlier, I think it would be useful to use that as an example. There are three readings during a Sunday service, one from the Hebrew Bible, a recitation of a Pslam portion, another reading from the New Testament epistles, and one reading from a Gospel. Clearly, any material about any one of those individual readings, as an individual subject, would belong first and primarily in articles relating to those sections of the Bible. Additional material on them in Catholic context would be a POV fork. The only way I could see the weekly readings being independently notable in and of themselves would be if we could demonstrate that there is sufficient material dealing with them as a group, not individually, to meet notability requirements and provide sufficient material for a separate article. There is, like I said, a lot of material on these weekly readings, actually a rather staggeringly huge amount, both in the homiletics journals and in the various published sermons and other works of priests through the ages. But most of the homiletics journals deal with broad ideas for sermons, not specific material which specifically deals with the specific readings directly in the context of each other. And the specific sermons of, say, Anthony of Padua, might be notable as themselves, but probably first as that, not as "sermons about the third week's Bible readings" or whatever. That being the case, they probably wouldn't be useful for similar articles for individual week's readings in the Catholic liturgical cycle. That being the case, I don't think there is enough more or less consistent material there to establish notability of the individual weekly readings of the Catholic liturgical cycle either. So, I doubt they would meet notability. The same rules, I think, would apply here. To date, evidently, neither I or the nominator here has seen evidence on these pages that the material these articles would require to establish their specific notability has yet to be presented. That being the case, I don't think they qualify as notable or meet encyclopedic standards, and they should be removed. Transwiki-ing to Wikibooks or some other sister site would, I think, be reasonable. And I myself have no objections per se to the material being somewhere. But I don't yet have any reason to think that they clearly meet Wikipedia's own specific policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jasonasosa has during the time of this discussion deleted the part of the article that summarizes the Noah story, and all that is left is the treatment of the Torah portion in the Jewish tradition. -- Dauster (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I find some of the hostility to content in this discussion astounding. What is so wrong with having additional information on this topic available in the encyclopedia, even if one cannot recognize an analog in one's own cultural tradition? Plainly, the three or four editors who dislike these articles have made their argument, but to me the result they propose is merely the reduction of information available in Wikipedia. Deletion of dozens of articles that have been read and edited for 7 years merely because they do not fit the conception of three or four editors strikes me as some hubris. -- Dauster (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dauster, please don't personalize this issue, or forget WP:AGF. We have guidelines and policies for a reason. WP:CFORK, WP:WEIGHT, WP:N and WP:V are the notable pages at play. If these articles do, indeed, violate principles found in those pages, which I maintain that they do, then there is a very good reason why they should be deleted. Wikipedia is not for everything. Editors have eagerly pointed out that this article may be appropriate at another venue, with different policies, and a different mission. However, wikipedia's goal is not to provide a study guide for Judaism. Our goal is not to provide multiple articles written about the same topic from simply different points of view. Our goal is not to cover topics which aren't covered by independent secondary sources, which allow us to write the article in accord with WP:NPOV. Our goal is not to write articles for the sake of having in-universe style essays which may be useful to a subset of our readership for religious reasons. As far as I can tell, the reasons to keep this article so far have fallen, almost exclusively, into those categories, but that contravenes our policies. It doesn't mean this article isn't useful, or can't find a home somewhere else to serve this purpose. It just means it's not suited for here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia, as such, is an encyclopedia. As such, the content it contains is expected to be, basically, encyclopedic. And I also find the insistence that they are going to be "deleted" to indicate that at least one editor hasn't actually read many of the comments. It is, basiically, being suggested to be moved to another venue, whose rules it seems to more closely adhere to. It is hard not to get the impression form some of the editors that they have the impression that having an article in wikipedia, as wikipedia, is somehow the goal here. While that is, obviously, flattering to the project, it also could be seen as displaying a bit of contempt for the other projects. So far as I can see, the article as it exists may also violate WP:QUOTEFARM as well. So far as I can tell, each of the "Rabbinic interpretations" included is, in fact, specifically applicable to a specific limited text. As such, they very clearly could be included in the existing articles which deal with those texts more directly. The fact that they are given such heavy weight in this article, to the apparent exclusion of almost everything else, also makes it rather clearly violate POV fork. I am sorry that some individuals cannot see that policies and guidelines pretty much have to take priority over all else. Yes, I could very easily create a virtual equivalent of Our Daily Bread on wikipedia as well, and defend it with almost the identical arguments that have been used here. If I did, I am sure those articles would be subjected to deletion in the same way. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter—you are requesting an indication of Notability for Weekly Torah portions. You mention Our Daily Bread. You say "Yes, I could very easily create a virtual equivalent of Our Daily Bread on wikipedia as well, and defend it with almost the identical arguments that have been used here. If I did, I am sure those articles would be subjected to deletion in the same way."[1] According to our article "Our Daily Bread" was "first published in April 1956".[2] Wouldn't different standards of notability apply? The "Weekly Torah portion" is much older. The commentaries on the weekly Torah portion are in instances many centuries old. Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly, WP:V is being followed, as the nom points out that the article does have many in-line references. Although the complaint was brought that this article's reference style doesn't match Wikipedia's preferred in-line footnote style, that's not a reason to delete.
  • WP:NOR is being followed, as no original analysis is being offered in the article; again, everything is attributed to a reliable source
The main reason the nominator brings is:
  • "The article is also written in an explicitly in-universe POV, describing the book of genesis in wikipedia's voice"
Looking at the article, I do not find this to be the case. Over and over again, the article attributes interpretation explicitly to many authoritative sources. For example, the article says,
"Interpreting the words, 'And the earth was corrupt (תִּשָּׁחֵת, tishachet) before God,' in Genesis 6:11, a Baraita of the School of Rabbi Ishmael taught that whenever Scripture uses the word 'corruption,' it refers to sexual immorality and idolatry."
If the article actually suffered from the criticism put forth, it would instead say something like,
"The corruption in Genesis 6:11 refers to sexual immorality and idolatry."
without attribution. The article also offers many contrasting interpretations from authoritative sources. I have trouble finding any biblical interpretation here given "in-universe" in Wikipedia's voice. The one thing that could be improved is perhaps providing the context for the interpretation, but this is a reason to improve the article, not delete it.
For comparison, I looked for another religion article, one that has WP:GOOD status, to compare this article to. Look at Shiva, and, for example, under Attributes, where it says:
"Sacred Ganges: The Ganges river flows from the matted hair of Shiva. The epithet Gaṅgādhara ("bearer of the river Gaṅgā") refers to this feature.[91][92] The Gaṅgā (Ganges), one of the major rivers of the country, is said to have made her abode in Shiva's hair.[93] The flow of the Ganges also represents the nectar of immortality."
with reference to interpretation from religious scholars. This is similar to what is in this article, although (again) it's the citation style that's different. For another comparison, look at Jesus#Proclamation_as_Christ_and_Transfiguration. (Although it's not a WP:GOOD article, it certainly gets a lot of editorial attention.) I think it's reasonable to expect our readers to understand the context in which these kinds of articles are written once they are reading the body of the articles, and if the context isn't explained adequately, improve it, but again, not a reason to delete. Zad68 18:51, 16 July 2012 (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.
More