Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yetzirah

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!} 22:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yetzirah

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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) 19:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Judaism, and Spirituality. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources in the article, and there appear to be more from a quick google search. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ficaia: Perhaps you could provide an example, because I just see lots of books about "Sefer/Sepher Yetzirah", which is a completely different subject. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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) 09:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) 10:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are extremely unencyclopedic articles with a similarly insubstantial parent article and no active editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are deletion criteria, so you ought to withdraw your nominations.Central and Adams (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion criteria here is no serious references in the past 100 years beyond extremely trivial mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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) 14:28, 15 August 2022 (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.