Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War Rape and Judaism

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. The cited journal article may be usable as a source somewhere else, but is not enough to show independent notability for this separate Wikipedia article. RL0919 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War Rape and Judaism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy delete. Fails all N, is OR. Agree with speedy delete, but it would probably be rejected at CSD. // Timothy :: talk 07:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely inappropriate for this article to be nominated for deletion considering it is NOT original research there was cited material. DroppingInNotONe1 (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is example of source in which proves this was not original research

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0309089216661171 DroppingInNotONe1 (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply interesting edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Care to comment on these?
Comment to closing admin: Please review this users edit history for possible NOTHERE. // Timothy :: talk 10:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no chance of becoming a useful article. I would have speedied it except that I don't think I'm allowed to do that once an AfD is started. The article on Deuteronomy would be appropriate at Wartime sexual violence, but that is not an invitation to you, DroppingInNotONe1. Zero^talk 11:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
/agree, I'm terrible at CSD, so I just decided to bring it here. // Timothy :: talk 11:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's already a useful article DroppingInNotONe1 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be a brief discussion in Deuteronomy perhaps, nothing for GNG. Wildly fanciful claims. I don't see anything for sourcing other than the Bible. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Many problems. One of which is that the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament source could be usable elsewhere, maybe, but "Discover The Truth" is a WP:SPS and biblegateway.com is just the primary source without any context or commentary, which makes its use here WP:SYNTH. Neither of the latter two are reliable in this context. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the reality is the article is well-sourced and in line with what the Torah actually says. False claims that the Oaktree did nto actually read the article because there was in fact peer reviewed source and it was not original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.186.90 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe add the information to a page like Book of Deuteronomy. This is at best WP:OR. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2023 (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.