Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Slave Trade

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. I originally closed this as withdrawn, but I started kicking myself after. I've decided to go with consensus, since the article is pretty much fraudulent. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Slave Trade

The biggest issue with this "article" is that all the sources are misrepresented. It was created by banned user Serenesoulnyc who recently reappeared with many abusive sockpuppets. It's poorly written and chock-full of original research. The only instance where a statement is directly cited is through a link to the web that has nothing at all to do with what is being claimed. I checked two of the references listed at the bottom. Davis (1988) pp. 64-66 (which is presented as a supposed citation under References), as expected, says nothing at all lending support to any claims in the article–it only very briefly describes the concept of slavery in Judaism. Potok (1978), p. 395 makes no mention of slavery whatsoever, and the only instances in which slavery is mentioned in the entire book are mostly in relation to Bibilical accounts of Jews being enslaved. One reference is impossible to check and there is no doubt that the other is as blatantly misrepresented. I was going to tag the article for speedy deletion given that it nearly qualifies as WP:PN and was created by a now banned and abusive vandal, but since I am not quite sure, I'm nominating it instead. — Zerida 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related page on which claims in Jewish Slave Trade are purportedly based:~~

I am withdrawing the nomination as there has not been sufficient discussion to address the doubts that seem to have been raised, nor more specifically the contents of the article. Admin, please close nomination as withdrawn. — Zerida 20:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article doesn't seem to have much real content not covered elsewhere. VanTucky 07:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ changed to Neutral or Merge with Arab slave trade: (see reasons for change below) the user seem to be fond of hoaxes, this article as well as Sharmuta and the old Swedish Slave trade (deliberately similar to Swedish slave trade) all look like hoaxes. Additionally, some statements are made which I am quite sure to be incorrect, and the online reference cannot be opened. Dan Gluck 15:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the online reference can be opened, and says nothing about jewish slave traders. Rather, Jewish slaves in Roman times are mentioned. Dan Gluck 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I changed my vote because I am no longer sure that Serenesoulnyc is a hoaxer, maybe he just "doesn't play by the rules" and got involved in some fight with Zerida. Still, the article seems odd and at least the online link is unrelated. In any case, if it is not a hoax then merging with Arab slave trade should be considered, because both deal with the same period and geographical area Dan Gluck 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, please assume good faith. To begin with, Serenesoulnyc was not banned because he got into "a fight" with me. He was banned because of his repeated abuse of policy with respect to sockpuppetry and his insertion of false information into articles, which continues as of this writing. I have indicated on WP:ANI before that people not familiar with these topics may not be able to tell whether this and other articles are indeed hoaxes, which is why I spent time actually checking the references and page numbers cited. Obviously, you do not have to believe me; you can check the references yourself (on that note, I am going to see if I can find more knowledgeable Wikipedians on the topic willing to comment), but you are implying that I am lying by saying that I made the nomination because of "a fight". The latter itself is not true, because there was no "fight" to begin with, only a consistent pattern of vandalism and abuse of policy on articles whose topic I am familiar with, and whose writers asked me to comment.

I should, however, mention that these articles have no affect on me personally. For example, the Coptic flag article in which he continuously inserts a bogus self-made flag of Egypt, has no particular significance to me. On a personal level, I neither identify with the Coptic flag (impossible) nor always agree with its supporters. I am, however, trying to point out that he is deliberately introducing false information into Wikipedia. I know this because it happens to be about a topic with which I am at least familiar. There is, however, no excuse for introducing false information into articles regardless of the nature of the content dispute. Please, assume good faith — Zerida 19:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Origional research--Sefringle^Talk 05:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 05:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Jon513 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verfiable sources; the ones listed are a misrepresentation and a smokescreen for the fact that this is indubitably a hoax. No reason to merge suspect content elsewhere, so deletion is the way to go here.--Isotope23 15:25, 2 July 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.