Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaronids
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Aaronids
- – (View log)
WP:POVFORK of Kohen, created to present Richard Elliott Friedman's POV on the subject bypassing the normal editing and consensus process and WP:NPOV weighting. Any useful material can be summarized and merged with Kohen. --Shirahadasha 17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC) It might be worth noting that Aaronites was previously made into a redirect to Kohen following a merge approved by the community. It appears the issue is being revisited with a slight spelling change. --Shirahadasha 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per Shirahadasha. 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)רח"ק | Talk | Contribs
- Delete per nom; pov fork. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. IZAK 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete clear POV fork. Despite 13 footnote there is only one source! Jon513 12:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't the same subject as Kohen; it addresses the Aaronids as a distinct subgroup of Kohen, in particular as opposed to the non-Aaronid priesthood, such as that based at Shiloh. The existence of non-Aaronid priests is quite clear in the Bible, whether you agree with textual criticism or not, Samuel wasn't an Aaronid, neither were any children of king David, despite their ministering as priests, and the priests from Shiloh that Solomon expelled weren't Aaronids either. For the record, I wasn't aware that the Aaronites article ever existed (I've always heard them termed Aaronids, so it never occurred to me to look for Aaronites), but now that I look in its history, I note that even Eastons Bible Dictionary thought that the subject was worth having an article about (aaronites), separate to its article (priest) about the Kohen; why would Easton's ever have an article that was a POV fork of another of its articles?. How it can be a POV fork, when it doesn't address the same issue is beyond me. ----User talk:FDuffy 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Since under this perspective the Aaronids are considered to be a sub-class of Kohen, the article could fit within a section on critical perspectives within Kohen. It might also be worth noting that the traditional view on Samuel, David's children, and the Shiloh priesthood is different from the critical view you present. The traditional view is that Samuel was a Levite who could assist priests; David and his progeny are traditionally accorded a certain familiarity and certain privileges ("And David sat with God..." -- the rest of us have to remain standing at all times if we ascend the Temple Mount), but they aren't priests; and the Shiloh priests were descended from Aaron, but Solomon kicked them out because he consolidated the priesthood in the Temple in Jerusalem. Both views are views, not self-evident facts, and need to be presented as such, with appropriate supporting detail and sourcing, per WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to closing admin. WP:STACK appears to have gone on here. Particularly since the above signatories appear to be the same ones as signed here, despite the fact that the articles have little connection beyond being raised on my talk page and at the place where I am alleging that vote stacking seems to have occurred.----User talk:FDuffy 23:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- That discussion started before this nomination was made. It just seems many people feel uneasy at your roughshod ride through Wikipedia in your desire to advance your agenda. JFW | T@lk 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biblical Criticism --Shirahadasha 03:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as a POV fork. --pIrish 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. POV fork, revisionism under the guise of scholarship. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
