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The result was nomination withdrawn. There is no remaining !vote for deletion and merge discussion can take place on the articles talk page. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dybbuk box

[edit]

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

~~This seems like absolute nonsense, no decent references and lots of speculative hocus pocus waffle.~~ E. Fokker (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable because no reliable or secondary sources are cited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgankevinj public (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Have you looked? There are plenty at Google news

Keep: Seems to have plenty of reliable sources, especially related to the associated film. This, oddly enough, is a legend I've actually heard of via a radio show. With decent references established, and notability established (via the fact it's having a film made about it and the refs available at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Dybbuk+box%22), your other two reasons for deletion - 'absolute nonsense' and 'hocus pocus waffle' don't stand on their own. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the refs now listed I'd say only one is much good, the LA Times. If it's kept then it really needs to be move to Dibbuk box as that is what it seems to be generally called. E. Fokker (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is quite a bit around on a certain search engine, but for once I disagree with the nominator. (This nominator, that is. I do disagree with other nominators at times.) I don't think it's nonsense - as such. I am cynical and suspect an attempted viral promotion of a certain film that shall remain nameless..... I would be interested to find out reliably how long the story has been around. A move wouldn't be needed - just a new redirect with the alternative title. Both are well used spellings. Peridon (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel that my rewrite makes the box meet WP:GNG and hopefully isn't full of speculative hocus pocus waffle. Lots of WP:RS and although it currently relies heavily on one source for the legend, I think it that the pay-per-view sources found in Google go into it in-depth as well. I just can't see the whole article! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source addition. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now looks like a completely different article with some good sources. I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. E. Fokker (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing once again... Peridon (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main Dybbuk article that is short on content. This article does provide enough sources though. IZAK (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per IZAK Morgankevinj(talk) 18:26, 1 November 2010 (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.