Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Points of interest related to Religion on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup

This is a list of transcluded discussions on the deletion of articles related to Religion. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain this list by:

  • adding new items, by adding "{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}}" to the top of the list below (replace PageName with the name of the page to be deleted).
  • removing closed AFDs.
  • removing unrelated discussions.

If you wish, you may also:

  • tag discussions by adding "{{subst:delsort|Religion}} <small>-- ~~~~</small>" on a new line. You can automate this task by adding {{subst:deltab|Religion}} to your monobook.js file. See Template:Deltab for instructions.

Consult WP:DEL for Wikipedia's deletion policy. Visit WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day.


Contents

[edit] Religion

[edit] Samuel Doctorian

Samuel Doctorian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article doesn't really establish notability, but it seems marginal for a speedy deletion. Can't find decent non-autobiographical sources to verify most of the information in the page. Author has left Wikipedia and so is unreachable for debate. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 18:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep I would reduce this to a stub to avoid a copyright violation of his bio at biblelandmission.org (which is what this text basically is). He actually appears moderately notable - he has given talks all over the world (you can see that on various websites) and appears to be sort of a homegrown missionary/evangelical/Nostradamus. The problem is finding any independent sources on him - going to be tough. Brianyoumans 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep worth stubbifying and rewriting, if independent sources ca be found .There should be articles in the appropriate specialized magazines.

Trial balloon given the way wp people cant get to libraries or avoid them, material which may take library work should have a loger than 5 day period--perhaps 2 weeks if a general college library will do, perhaps 2 months in cases like this. DGG 07:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just got a chance to do a Lexis-Nexis news search; there are a few references in the Times-Picayune, but mostly as announcements. I'm going to do a magazine search later on this week. Should probably have done a more complete job before nominating the article. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 07:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Copeland

Kenneth Copeland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article contains unencyclopedic material like he "turned his life over to ministry work," a long list of 2006 doctrines, and three poorly sourced quotes. Seems like an ad for this ministries combined with uncited controversies. There is nothing notable in the article other than he was on Believer's Voice of Victory in 1979, but "Believer's Voice of Victory" is an unsourced article with questionable notability itself. Arbustoo 20:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Poorly written maybe, but I think the questionable quote in the nom is just a flowery way of saying that he began working full-time on the ministry (as explained in the later sentences in that paragraph in the article). He seems notable (director of known church/religious movement/whatever-you-call-it, been in mainstream news several times for his controversial statements (the controversy was the news not just his statement), so the article would need cleanup work and more citations, not deletion. DMacks 20:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't like the guy, but he is a very prominent pastor in Christianity. --Dennisthe2 23:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- Eastmain 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sufficiently notable, I think. --Eastmain 03:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I assume that by "he was on Believer's Voice of Victory in 1979" the nominator means "he has been the host of Believer's Voice of Victory since 1979." Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (see all of the above). dr.ef.tymac 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The Eventualist in me says that this article will eventually get sorted out and will be just fine. Nswinton 17:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just needs some writing skills applied to article with reliable information in the controversies section. He's controversial, this is true, but what he supposedly says that stirs up controversy is not true.



[edit] Islam

[edit] Non-Islamic views of Muhammad

Non-Islamic views of Muhammad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page is a quote farm. As per WP:NOT Mere collection of public domain information. Tigeroo 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOT. Consider it for transwiki to WQ. --KZ Talk • Contribs 08:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote. So tagged. MER-C 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote- more appropiate there. Thunderwing 18:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, delete and transwiki. I note that this article includes some material moved from rhe separate article "Image of Muhammad in the West" when it was renamed as Christian view of Muhammad. That article has also failed to mature and I have suggested on the talk page it be renamed as "Medieval Christian view of Muhammad". Editors with an interest in this debate may wish to respond to that proposal too. - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote.--JyriL talk 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote as above. --Matt57 20:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Matt57 22:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per above comments Captain panda 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharh

Sharh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

non notable term; apparently means "commentary", but there is no explanation of why this is in any way a special term in Islam. Prod removed. Brianyoumans 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Please move it to Wikitionary. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hadith. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment At present, the word "sharh" does not even appear in Hadith, except in the directory sidebar. Brianyoumans 06:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • strong Keep term is used often in the names of commentaries to hadith collection, the famous Fathul Bari fi Sharh Sahih al Bukhari for example. I needs at the very least to be there as a disambiguation page, and given that, it makes sense to add the template and a short explanations, witch is what we have at the moment.--Striver - talk 11:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Btw, a alternative transliteration is "Shahr". --Striver - talk 11:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but there is no point in moving to wikitionary yet because there is no definition to move. Could probably be speedied per CSD A1, no context. RookwoodDept. of Mysteries 15:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have made it into a disambiguation page because it doesn't deserve to be an article since there was no content. I think it is useful in this regard and if someone finds enough literature to write an article about the subject of shahrs then they can later. gren グレン 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This makes a lot of sense. I like it now. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel


[edit] Judaism

[edit] Shmuel Auerbach

Contested prod of a rabbi. No sources, no googles, possible lack of notability. >Radiant< 09:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • If some references can be found then keep, otherwise Delete--Greatestrowerever 09:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep- I can see him being notable if he is a leader of a politcal party? Thunderwing 09:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:BIO for politicians. It would be great if he actually was, but in point of fact his party (Degel HaTorah) has any seats at all in the Knesset only through an electoral alliance with the more prominent United Torah Judaism. Auerbach does not himself sit in the Knesset in either of the two seats assigned to DHT, nor is he listed in DHT's article as any manner of party leader or functionary. Being a junior "leader" of the thirteenth most important party in Israel doesn't strike me as significant. RGTraynor 13:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • RG: You are wrong on all counts: (1) Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach is not a politician, he is a noted Haredi rabbi and posek ("decisor of Jewish law") (2) United Torah Judaism (UTJ) is not "one" party, it is an alliance between two separate parties: Agudat Israel (representing Israeli Hasidim) and Degel HaTorah (representing the "Lithuanian" Mitnagdim) (3) For the last election in Israel they agreed to be united under the "banner" of UTJ but split the six Knesset seats they attained between themselves, see United Torah Judaism#2006 unity. (4) The supreme policy-making bodies for both Degel HaTorah and for Agudat Israel are their individual "Council of Torah Sages" (Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah) and it is there (in Israel) that Rabbi Auerbach sits and "wields" power together with the other rabbis on the two councils. (5) None of the rabbis on the "Council/s of Torah Sages" ever sit in the Knesset, a job which is left to political functionaries (themselves also rabbis, but lacking in the religious/spiritual power of the "Council of Torah Sages" members.) (6) Rabbi Auerbach's notability is derived from the fact that he is regarded as one of the pre-eminent Torah sages of present-day Haredi Judaism, and has nothing to with how he is perceived in the world of Israeli politics. (7) Finally, my question to you is, when did you become an expert in Haredi rabbis? IZAK 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - abstaining from voting as I know nothing about Israeli politics, but if Degel HaTorah's correct in saying he's leader of a party with 3 elected representatives in the Knesset, he's probably notable enough to warrant a keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iridescenti (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment: If he actually is, a claim for which the article provides no source. A Google search of Shmuel Auerbach + Degel HaTorah turns up all of 28 hits, most of them Wikipedia and various mirrors [1] and almost all of the rest being blogs. The lead hit discussing Auerbach's role with the party is from Haaretz [2], an article from this January that states "Most prominent among these rabbis was the head of the Maalot Hatorah Yeshiva, Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach, who is expected to be an important Degel Hatorah leader in another 10 years or so." (emphasis mine). None of the other sourced hits do anything more than identify Auerbach as belonging to the party. RGTraynor 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment - his page on Hebrew Wikipedia presumably says more & has better sources, if anyone can translate it. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Not one whit more, from the looks of it, and apparently not so much. RGTraynor 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as a politician assuming sourced back up his being head of the party.--but we'd need some evidence of that, since the article on Degel HaTorah mentions two other leaders, but not him. DGG 03:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • DGG: Let's get this straight, Rabbi Auerbach is not a politician. He is a spiritual leader of Haredi Judaism. IZAK 05:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As the article is written now, it certainly doesn't prove N. This Rabbi might be worthy of a better article but his work might also not be publicized on the internet, or maybe he is NN at this time? Nonetheless, the timing for an Afd might not be productive at this time since it is a Jewish holiday for the next week and some editors with more knowledge to comment or add info might not be logging in. --Shuki 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The article is badly written and needs to be expanded, for it implies that Rabbi Auerbach's only claims to notability are the fact that he is the firstborn of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and that he is a prominent figure in the Degel HaTorah political party. Nonetheless, in addition to these, Rabbi Auerbach is a well-respected Rosh Yeshiva and posek. A simple WP: Google test would reveal his fame [3] , [4] , and [5], as well as the Hebrew wiki. This is probably an unfair afd at this time because anyone who knows anything about Rabbi Auerbach is busy celebrating the eight-day festival of Passover, and probably won't see this afd for another week. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, there are more hits for "Shmuel Auerbach" than "Shmuel Aurbach", so perhaps that should be changed on the page. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aaronids

Aaronids (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

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 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)

[edit] Levite Tithe

Levite Tithe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Created as a WP:POVFORK of Maaser Rishon to present a specific POV independent of other editors. Any non-duplicative reliably sourced material can be merged with Maaser Rishon --Shirahadasha 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Shirahadasha. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 20:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; pov fork. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. IZAK 07:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Jon513 12:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: As far as I can tell, Levite Tithe, the alleged "POV fork", was created two days earlier than the article the nomination claims that it was forked from. Did someone use a time machine to accomplish that? (Levite Tithe was created, more or less fully developed, on November 12, 2006, and Maaser Rishon was created two days later, on November 14.) Pharamond 13:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As noted above, it cannot be a POV fork, since it was created first. Maaser Rishon is the POV fork. By the way, Levite Tithe isn't representing an independent POV of the other editors (not least because the article was created first), but is actually representing this article in the Jewish Encyclopedia. I'm going to spoil the fun of anyone who wants to guess who it was that created that POV fork - it turns out that it was Shirahadasha, the editor raising this afd--User talk:FDuffy 22:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to closing admin. WP:STACK appears to have gone on here. --User talk:FDuffy 23:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork. JFW | T@lk 22:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Pharamond's point is well-taken and I agree this article does not have the same history as Aaronids, its companion AfD, and shouldn't be treated in the same fashion. Accordingly, I now believe a merge proposal would be the best way to handle the parallel articles Maaser Rishon and Levite Tithe, and both this AfD and the parallel AfD for Maaser Rishon should be closed as premature without prejudice to future actions. --Shirahadasha 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical definition of God

Biblical definition of God (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I stared at this one for a while to try and decide if it's at all salvageable as sometimes WP:OR can be. Perhaps an encyclopedic topic with this article could be written, but what is here is nowhere near that and not worth trying to salvage. You get to the last paragraph and it devolves into some weird ... I'm not sure. Something about Einstein and the Theory of Relativity. Totally unsourced. Arkyan • (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - something might be made of the topic, but this article isn't it. No sources other than the biblical cites, and Wikipedia isn't the place for exegesis. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. God, special relativity, if only we had Cantor's Theorem, we would have had all the traditional enthusiasms of the journeyman crackpot. Pop Secret 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - if "In this article, with the help of physics I defined God" isn't OR, I don't know what is... - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and perhaps rename (Biblical conception of God). The OR paragraph about physics at the end of the article (Pop Secret, Iridescenti) was added later by a crackpot and I removed it. The topics itself is notable and was subject of numerous books and articles. The problem is that our article is not sourced (and not well balanced etc.), but temporary lack of sources is not a valid deletion reason.--86.49.47.138 21:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Editors appear to be basing their judgement of the topic upon some unencyclopaedic content that was added to the article by one single editor. Yes, this article contains no sources. But that does not mean that sources do not exist. In fact they do. ISBN 1419164619 spends pretty much the whole of page 10 on "God is Spirit", for example. ISBN 0825431549 discusses "God is Spirit" on page 35, along with the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches, which it describes as "perhaps the best and most biblical definition of God". ISBN 0867050535 devotes pages 6 to 8 on God "In the Bible", and can be used to confirm several points of analysis given in this article.

    The correct way to salvage this article is not to nominate it for deletion, but to employ the aforementioned sources and any others that one can find to check the article for accuracy, citing the sources against which it is checked and modifying the article to bring it into line with the sources as needed. The correct tag for that is {{verify}}, not {{afd1}}. Keep. Uncle G 22:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The nature of God is discussed very fully from every notable point of view in various articles. This is just an essay summarizing the topic. The content is already included. DGG 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Names of God in Judaism. IZAK 07:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, precisely per Uncle G's point. --Keefer4 | Talk 10:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The matter has already been covered in other articles. This is just an essay, bordering on OR. 202.54.176.11 12:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per WP:V. Understanding that the issue is the topic, not the article, I don't believe we have the ability to verify an article on the subject. Which Bible? The Jewish one, the Christian one (and within that, the Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Coptic, or what)? Moreover, each version is subject to many varying interpretations. All we have available to us is what various religions and writers say is the Bible's view. How can we tell how much of what they say is "the Bible's" view and how much is their own view? Even if we did nothing but select quotes someone would have to determine which quotes to select, and different selections would result in very different views. I think we could all agree that an article called God's view of God couldn't be verified when all we have in the way of sources is people's view of God. This article isn't different enough to come within WP:V. --Shirahadasha 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect per IZAK. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lubavitch Yeshiva Network

Lubavitch Yeshiva Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

We already have Category:Chabad schools, but this sorry mess is neither a "list" nor an "article" it is just a poorly thrown together hodge-podge often with telephone numbers given (with international codes when dialing from the USA) to boot. One shudders to think what happens if this type of thing ever gets to grow on Wikipedia? Basic violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY; WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and it just looks like a huge WP:COI (formerly WP:VANITY) to promote one brand of Hasidic Judaism. Mercifully, no-one has thought of creating comprehensive lists (with telephone numbers and names of staff, offices and dorms, oy!) of every last school affiliated with every branch of Hasidism... Perhaps, when more decent articles about schools and yeshivas are written there can be a List of Chabad-Lubavitch yeshivas to go with Category:Chabad schools, but for now this mess must go. IZAK 08:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maaser Rishon

Maaser Rishon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:POVFORK. Created 2 days after Levite Tithe, in order to present a biased view. The Levite Tithe article is sourced from this Jewish Encyclopedia article, while the Maaser Rishon article, as created, appears to have been unsourced. ----User talk:FDuffy 23:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-08 09:20Z

[edit] Sinaiticism

Sinaiticism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No useful Google hits, nothing links there, first ref (the only one online) has no mention of term; probable hoax. cesarb 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I think. The word was privately coined, but the article still represents an interesting set of beliefs. It would still have NPOV problems, though. StAnselm 08:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. StAnselm 09:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - even assuming this was a good faith article, it's still WP:NEO and WP:OR at best. --Action Jackson IV 09:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's not a hoax, it's rather soapboxy and either way not worth inclusion. Arkyan • (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the absence of any publication outside the originators using the term-- as the article says, "Sinaiticism was coined by New Covenant Congregation of Israel Charlotte Tabernacle Elohim (NCCI-Charlotte)." --and they don't even list a publication of their own using it. (The references are general)If its use becomes wider, than it would justify an article, though this is a self-admittedly POV article. The material duplicates other material in the existing articles for Messianic Judaism. Some part of the views are also held by other groups. There tend to be strong views on articles in this area, so I would definitely let this AfD run for the full time. DGG 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this neologism and violation of WP:NEO and WP:OR and as the nominator cesarb says also a probable violation of WP:HOAX. IZAK 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete.רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 08:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Religion_5bc2.html"