Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hebrew Bible views on women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per Snow/invalid nomination - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 09:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew Bible views on women

Hebrew Bible views on women (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  1. There are too many views on the subject.
  2. It has not been successfully cleaned up in over 3 years.

It's time to put it to rest. Thank you, Shir-El too 14:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment If you don't like the article, edit it to improve it. MarkBul 16:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Normally, I don't endorse a suggestion that the nominator try to improve the article, but it does not appear from the article history that the nominator has participated in any of the "clean up" efforts. Maybe this dog needs just needs a bath before you put it to sleep. Mandsford 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are feminist academic types who make careers out of this stuff - there has to be library shelves full of books on the topic. "Too many views" makes no sense. "Not cleaned up in 3 years" isn't much better. Some articles don't attract attention. That doesn't mean they should be deleted. MarkBul 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mandsford. Can be fixed. Just needs attention. Bearian 14:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you don't like the article, edit it to improve it. I entered the page with that intention; the title was interesting and it was listed for copyedit. Reading article and discussion page, it seems clear to me it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being imrpoved, Wikified or expanded to any worthwhile conclusion. "Too many views" makes no sense. Clarification: does this article focus on the legal, social, religious or other (name) view of women in the Hebrew Bible? During which period? According to which authority/point of view? Citing which sources? Would you like to tackle it? If anyone can make any headway with it I'll be the first to cheer! Shir-El too 15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Old Testament views.... First time I've ever seen an article nominated because there was too much content. But at the very least the examples need chapter and verse. And of course every such example has been discussed, for the last two thousand years, so its sourcable. DGG (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this is probably just a tad notable as the material for this article has been around for quite a while. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 16:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article had not been categorized under the Hebrew Bible category. Now that it is, hopefully it will be more noticeable to writers in that area. --Eliyak T·C 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I certainly agree that the current article could use a lot of work, but AfD discussion is on the topic, not the state of the current article, which can presumably be improved eventually. There doesn't seem to be a serious claim here that the topic isn't notable and verifiable. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Stubbify if need be. --Shirahadasha 02:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. This version is just garbage. Prehaps if rewritten with sources it might be worth keeping, but this version is trash and certianly isn't encyclopediac. SefringleTalk 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 02:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As others have noted, there are volumes that can be written on the subject, but most of what's there is — as Sefringle correctly points out — WP:OR or garbage. Like Shirahadasha, I would rather keep it as a stub that can be developed into a proper article than delete it altogether.
    Also, the article "has not been successfully cleaned up in over 3 years" in part because it was created only 14 months ago. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:56, 19 September 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.