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.Sandstein 17:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Not notable, no references, link spam.
PEAR (
talk) 12:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
note: above user has been indefinitely blocked
Weak keep, not my area of expertise, but there seems to have been at least one book written on the subject (Nothing Sacred: The Truth about Judaism), and several webpages. Perhaps merge into
Open source religion instead? --
kateshortforbob 12:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete Uninformative and uninteresting article.
Mandsford 01:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete unless reliable sources are found to attest notability. Found
one article, but I'm not certain if it is pertinent to the AFD
Corpx 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Seems to be notable on the basis that there was a book written about the subject, the movement has produced a
Haggadah, and apparently this movement has inspired other (albeit less focused) activity in the area of open source religion. I don't think that the "merge" suggested by Kateshortforbob is a good option. The
Open source religion article is about creating new belief systems ("invent your own religion"), while it seems that
Open Source Judaism is about using open collaboration to enhance participants' involvement with an established religious faith. (I have a hunch that if the article were about
Open Source Christianity, there would be an uproar against merging it into an article about do-it-yourself religions...)--
orlady 23:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep per orlady.
MathmoTalk 01:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep without needing to discuss motivation.DGG (
talk) 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)reply
by which I mean that the article should be kept based on the sources, and there is no need to consider whether the nomination may have been affected by improper considerations--it is enough to just consider the actual article. ,DGG (
talk) 00:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
weak keep per orlady.
Terse 14:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete as per Corpx
Harlowraman 17:03, 15 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.