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. It sounds like some deeper thought is required regarding a set of interrelated articles here, after which a deletion debate may be more usefully held if it is still wanted. -Splash - tk 18:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German Reform movement (Judaism)[edit]

German Reform movement (Judaism) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is the beginning of a POV fork from Reform Judaism, from which all current content was copied. Furthermore, the copy was made without carrying over the edit histories. The editor has been involved in discussing whether WP should use "Progressive" or "Reform" Judaism terminology. While well-intentioned, this page is disruptive and the involved parties should proceed with discussion and ordinary channels (e.g., merge, move or AfD) to advance their side of the dispute. HG | Talk 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This article may qualify as a Speedy Deletion. Since I am involved in the dispute, I did not feel qualified to nominate this for Speedy Deletion (e.g., Forking and copyvio). HG | Talk 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not a POV fork. This is a spin-out article, to allow summary style at Reform Judaism. Jheald 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that: the Reform Judaism article is considerably over-length, so summary style is recommended. It also represents basically a botch together of material in 3 very different areas: the C19 German movement; U.S. Reform Judaism today; and U.K. Reform Judaism, which has different historical roots, and a significantly different outlook. So summary style makes a lot of sense. It also lets the Reform Judaism article move much more quickly to where things are at today, as WP articles on religious movements should do, rather than many many screens of history first. Jheald 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOR. Insufficient secondary sources cited. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the tag says, it's Under Construction. Note that so far this is the content extracted from the existing article, not new material. Jheald 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle - what exactly do you consider Original Research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egfrank (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He means he wants to see more citations. And he's quite right. But it takes time. Jheald 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a huge section (now marked) that does have either synthesis or OR - its a hodgepodge mix of material from multiple regions and historical periods. Really needs to be taken out so as not to confuse the issue. Egfrank 13:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence. To show that the creator was not doing a neutral content spin-off, besides checking their involvement in the POV dispute discussions, consider that the first line of the article, moved from "Reform Judaism", now reads: "The roots of the progressive movement lie in the increasing secularization of Europe...." (emphasis added). The creator is intending to settle the Progressive vs Reform debate by creating this article. Thank you. As evidence of the creator's involvement in the dispute discussion, see where Jheald started this section during the dispute: Should Reform or Progressive be the main umbrella article. In addition, the creator was aware of the caution I gave in a warning entitled: Avoiding a POV fork. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the tag says, the article's Under Construction. That sentence was merely copy/pasted as more or less appropriate intro text from existing article Progressive Judaism. It's just placeholder stuff. If you want to improve it, go right ahead. But you don't call an AFD because you want to change one word. Jheald 19:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now edited this line. No particular point re the use of the word "Progressive" or "Reform" had been meant. Jheald 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep:
  1. The Pre-1883 German Reform movement has influenced multiple streams of Judaism. All these articles need to point to the same history without duplication - it is only logical to place this material in a separate article to which all articles may link
     • reform/liberal/progressive Judaism.
     • Conservative Judaism
     • Reconstructionist Judaism
     • Reform Judaism - currently documents US Reform, UK Reform, and Israeli progressive Judaism
     • Liberal Judaism - currently documents UK Liberal Judaism
     • German Progressive Judaism - planned article
  2. Reform Judaism is currently longer than the length recommended by WP:LENGTH
  3. German reform history is long (and needs to get much longer). Placing such a large history section at the front of this article obscures the fact that US Reform and UK Reform and Israeli Progressive are living movements with a modern history and philosophy.
  4. Placing German reform history in Reform Judaism is obscuring the fact that the US Reform history is severely lacking and making it hard to add material to the US history of Reform.
  5. Placing the pre-1883 German Reform movement into a Reform Judaism article is cramping it. There is a *lot* of missing material about disputes, convocations, steps forward and back. Hirsch is just one of many dissenting voices that need to be included in the story.

  Egfrank 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think we should apply WP:AGF here and not assume the article was created specifically for a POVFORK. The Reform/Progressive movement in Judaism began in Germany in the 19th century and so far as standard Wikipedia notability criteria are concerned, 19th Century German Reform movement is by itself easily a notable enough topic to merit a stand-alone article as part of a series of articles on Reform/Progressive Judaism. I would imagine that as the encyclopedia grows various subsections of the Reform Judaism article would inevitably grow large enough to be split off into their own articles. I'm not sure it's the role of the AfD process to supply input on whether or not now is the right time for article splitting, which is a natural Wikipedia process. If there were a strong WP:CONSENSUS one way or the other that would be a factor but I don't believe this is a case of an isolated editor violating a clear consensus. I would give the article a few days for construction to settle down and then see what the situation is. If it is indeed a blatant WP:POVFORK (for example, if it appears to be an essay style or all previous points of view but one have been removed) we can deal with it then, and if it should be merged back in for other reasons we can deal with that as well. I would suggest dispute resolution to help the editors involved resolve their differences on how best to proceed. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Reform Judaism (United States) article has also been created. There have been a number of recent disputes, including whether to use the terminology "Reform Judaism" or "Progressive Judaism". My general impression is that the new article topics satisfy notability and verifiability criteria, so there is no inherent policy problem with dividing the articles up this way, although there are certainly good arguments for a different approach. Once again, I believe that WP:AfD may not be the best place to resolve these differences. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. You may be right. However, we now are faced with two parallel overview articles on this branch of Judaism -- Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism -- both set up with parallel summary style linking to this (German Reform movement) and the Reform Judaism (North America). If I'm not mistaken, Progressive Judaism wouldn't function as a competing main article without such spin-off/fork articles -- because otherwise it would have to link to Reform Judaism as the main article for the movement. HG | Talk 23:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your concern, why don't you slap ((merge)) tags on Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism? It really hasn't got anything to do with sub-articles. Jheald 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a well-known historic movement in its own right, and an appropriate way of dealing with a complex subject. DGG (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Reform Judaism (Germany) to match Reform Judaism (North America); Reform Judaism (United Kingdom); and Liberal Judaism (United Kingdom) and keep on adding informative material. These are all good moves, valid historically, and should be the basis for a long-overdue upgrade of articles and information relating to these modern movements that broke with Orthodox Judaism. IZAK 02:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a content fork. The concerns about the historic roots of Reform Judaism in Germany should be covered properly under a History of Reform Judaism. As titled, this would be an article about the current state of Reform Judaism in Germany, touchign on the recovery of the population after the Holocaust and such. ThuranX 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This !vote by ThuranX appears to have been made after IZAK moved the article to Reform Judaism (Germany). The article has now been moved back to German Reform movement (Judaism). In line with ThuranX's !vote, a new stub Progressive Judaism (Germany) now exists for the current state of Progressive/Liberal/Reform Judaism in Germany. Jheald 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It actually exists to prevent content forks. We have multiple articles that need to link to it.

  I really like the idea of a History of... article, sounds good, but even in that case, this material would still need to be in a separate article and connected as a sub/main:

  • Reform/liberal/progressive judaism has a 200+ year history spanning 42 countries. That is a lot of history to cram into a single article.
  • Even with 2/3 still in outline form the article is 9K+
  • There are numerous books and articles devoted solely to the 70 year period covered by this article so there should be no shortage of reliable academic material to expand and source this article.

  Egfrank 13:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 02:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG and IZAK. I'm not sure if I agree with IZAK about renaming the article, though, because the other articles describe contemporary movements and I think this article is about a 19th century movement. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I made a mistake and I’m sorry. I agree that the article meets key WP criteria; the title and content are acceptable. My concern is with (1) parallel articles for Reform Judaism and Progressive Judaism covering the same ground for a single article. As Egfrank says, “Reform/liberal/progressive judaism has a 200+ year history spanning 42 countries. That is a lot of history to cram into a single article.” (2) How I perceived the spin-offs as created to tilt the table toward a specific choice between the two parallel articles. However, an AfD was the wrong way for addressing either the two parent articles or my concerns over how/why the spin-offs were implemented. I was wrong and I’ll try not to do it again. Instead of focusing on the spin-offs, Jheald is right – if I’m interpreting the comment above correctly – that a decision is needed about merging the parallel parent articles (Progressive and Reform) into a single article. Given that I erred here and do not want to create further ill will, perhaps somebody else would be willing to slap on that merge tag? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi HG: Your latter concerns "about merging the parallel parent articles (Progressive and Reform) into a single article" is part of what has been under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Concern about duplicating Reform and Progressive labels so let's continue it over there, but there is no way that that issue can get resolved in this vote here. Thanks for your efforts, IZAK 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Comment I think that Reform, Progressive, Liberal clearly need divisions and it is not POV fork, but I wish there were a greater number of knowledgeable people working on the Progressive Judaisms to talk through the merits of divisions based on geography, ideology, chronology, or even Rabbinical seminaries. There is not enough clarity about names of entries or even links to important progressive rabbis and schools.--Jayrav 20:46, 7 November 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.