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 delete. Sandstein 16:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jewbook (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)

Fails WP:GNG by a mile or so.

Barring Ref 1, which is non-independent (and to an extent, non-reliable) & Ref 2, which is an op-ed; I fail to see significant non-trivial coverage in any RS. ∯WBG^converse 14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain. Forestalls fascist use of Jewbook as meaning Facebook itself. Tens of thousands of, particularly American, Jews participate in these groups. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fred Bauder:->Kindly read the second line of the edit-notice, which is so prominently visible whilst editing this page.∯WBG^converse 15:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It sounds notable, but where are the sources? The current two are not enough, and the second source is cited only euphemistically at the moment. Zero^talk 05:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY / WP:NEO. There isn't even an agreement in sources as to what "Jewbook" is. There is a small smattering of sources referring to different closed groups of Jewish people on Facebook as "Jewbook". Converesely, in far-right speak this is “jewbook,” a derogatory term for Facebook popular with the far right. Slate (based, in part, on Zuckerberg's religion/ethnicity I believe). The disparate topics do not rise up to GNG (e.g. which Facebook groups (generally not Wiki notable) specifically do these refer to?), and redirect to Facebook based on a slur would be wrong. Echoing Fred's concern above - this phrase is in very wide use in far-right circles (in various forums and chats) - it might make sense to WP:SALT this.Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Icewhiz, pardon me but Fred's concern? He was the creator and was asking to retain it as it supposedly forestalls fascist use of Jewbook as meaning Facebook itself.

  Agree as to the other salient points and about the topic missing GNG. ∯WBG^converse 16:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring not to Fred's creation of the article, but to his comment above of "Forestalls fascist use of Jewbook as meaning Facebook itself." - which is the COMMONNAME at least in internet forums of a very non-RS nature but quite voluminous in terms of usage (e.g. - see Slate I quoted above). I share his concern of such content creeping onto here, and would suggest that SALTing would be a solution preferable to a placeholder article on a non-notable topic (which may be vandalized to become such). Icewhiz (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. this online chat group fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As per Icewhiz, recommend a liberal application of rock salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pretty clear GNG fail. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NEO. Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2018 (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.