Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of 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 of the debate was KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Judaism[edit]

An arbitrary lumping together of whatever negative anyone has said about >1 Jew in the history of mankind. Fully and obviously fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and should be deleted. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am aware that there are "Criticism of [Religion]" articles. The present article confuses Jews and Israelis, etc. Needs a fresh start. The waffle about circumcision is laughable. If that is a criticism of Judaism, where do we stop? I will minimally support a merge with Anti-Judaism (which covers the same subject matter), possibly backwards (because "anti-" seems to be a POV term nowadays. JFW | T@lk 09:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues even with the other Criticism of ... articles. They all need to be recast, imho. This is because such criticism takes so many different forms, have different agendas, are directed at different things, and in the end bear no resemblance to each other. My guess is that every imaginable critique is contained within other articles - it's hard to see what we'd accomplish by trying to lump it all together. --Leifern 23:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; additionally much if not all of this material is covered in other articles, for example History of Christianity and Judaizers. I am afraid to see what would fill in the "stub" tags, perhaps some information about blood libel, charging of excessive interest, who controls the banks, the newspapers etc. etc. Unfortunately I know that some of that stuff is already in existing articles as well. 6SJ7 00:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Rjm656s 00:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the wrong site to create a dumping ground for Jew-slaggings. Criticism of Islam should also be deleted, although that at least confines itself largely to slagging off the religion as it is perceived by the West. Grace Note 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Fix and Merge the Anti-Judaism with this article as they are bound to cover the same stuff. NPOV this article if neccesary so it is about actual Criticism of Judaism without the article istself being critical of Judaism because that wouldn't be a NPOV. Please note this isn't the first Criticism article: Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Atheism, Criticism of Family Guy.--Greasysteve13 03:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the current content is arbitrary it should be rearranged, the legitimacy of an article for "Criticism of <insert any major religion>" seems obvious as there should be enough encyclopedic content for all articles of that form. And a criticism of Judaism is not the same as anti-Judaism which seems to be a particular brand of Christian theological anti-Semitism. Frikle 03:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup (or maybe rewrite). I don't get it. I'm Jewish, and there's bound to be stuff to criticize about my religion. Also, we have Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Christianity, why can't we have this one? It's a notable topic, it just needs to be fixed-up. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge the Anti-Judaism with this article per Greasysteve13. I created this article. Here is the rationale for my doing so: I was working on the Criticism of the Catholic Church article and someone asked on the Talk Page why there wasn't also a Criticism of Judaism article. After some discussion, it became evident that there should be such an article and I so created this article. See Talk:Criticism of the Catholic Church#Criticism of Judaism for the full record of the discussion. There is a partial consensus that Criticism of the Catholic Church is for "legitmate, debatable" opposition to the doctrines, practices and actions of the Catholic Church whereas Anti-Catholicism was to be for the more "rabid, irrational" hatred of the Catholic Church "along the lines of anti-Semitism". Thus "Criticism of Judaism" is intended for "legitmate, debatable" opposition to Judaism whereas Anti-Semitism is intended to describe "rabid, irrational" hatred of Jews and Judaism. --Richard 06:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Criticism of Judaism by idol worshipers. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 06:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because as this article stands right now it is just a half-baked crass theological diatribe against Judaism based on discredited Christian and Islamic POVs (and not on an objective "criticism"). The opinions expressed in this article are in fact presented and dealt with in great detail in Christianity and anti-Semitism and Jews in the New Testament; and also in Islam and anti-Semitism and Category:Muhammad and the Jews. What this "article" is attempting to do, is to twist the views expressed in other articles and depict them as some sort of normal "criticism" of Judaism from outside the faith which is nothing less than hatemongering and is hence totally unacceptable. This is not the way to do it. IZAK 06:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gilgamesh he 06:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept of an article that legitimately documents criticism of Judaism is not in and of itself problematic. But this is just rubbish. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 06:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to fix it then.--Greasysteve13 09:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV OR.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per norm Evolver of Borg 07:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 08:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only relevant parts: mention of deicide should already be present in an article on Anti-Judaism. But Judaising, as the article notes, is not a Jewish phenomenon, but a Christian phenomenon. The Muslim comments are unsubstantiated and the belittling of Mohammed is not really a criticism of Judaism, but a criticism of some within Judaism, and could be levelled against anyone who does not believe in Mohammed's divinity. Etc. jnothman ^talk 08:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense, not worthy of wiki. Kempler video ^Talk 08:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Unless refs ar provided and it becomes a bit less POV. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Confusing hodge-podge - not even clear what it's about and mostly OR. --Leifern 10:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IZAK and nom Nesher
Delete Jew baiting Kuratowski's Ghost 11:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ayinyud 12:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Shlomke 13:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is any real content on this subject the article can be recreated. Jon513 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemably OR. Batmanand | Talk 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite, as much of the material here is not actual criticism of Judaism, but various anti-Jewish opinions held by assorted groups. I believe that material is properly covered by Persecution of Jews and its related articles. An article organized along the lines of Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam would be more appropriate. --Eliyak 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, re-write as necessary as described by Eliyak. Atlant 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~,~~Abstain~~ Delete unless the article can be rewritten so that it is a scholarly piece on theological debates and biblical criticism rather than a grab bag of anti-Semitic canards - an article called Theologicial criticisms of Judaism that actually cites Aquinas or Augustine could be useful but this article is just a grab-bag of unsourced and unfocussed OR.Homey 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this is deleted we must also delete:

....or it will give the impression that Judaism the one "ism" which is above critisism on Wikipedia. (Some) content could be merged from Anti-Judaism and the Critical historical view section in the Judaism article. What represents anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic opinion in the article should be removed. Hshhh, I´m not really here 16:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second comment: taking a look at:

- - Anti-Catholicism
  - Anti-Protestantism
  - Anti-Mormonism
  - Anti-Christianity redir to Criticism of Christianity
  - Anti-Islam redir to Islamophobia (Seperate article from Criticism of Islam)
  - Anti-Judaism

Generally it looks as if the "Anti-.." articles deals with bias against a religion. (Cartoons depicting stereotypes would be appropriate in such an article, IMO, as would any expression of irrational, emotional feelings.)

The "Criticism of.." articles (should!) examine the more scholarly criticism of a religion through the ages. What other (religious) scholars write about Judaism would be very relevant and appropriate in this article. Hshhh, I´m not really here 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Generic mullahs ranting against the 'Jews' or Falwell ranting against the Muslims would be addressed in the 'anti' articles. Scholarly criticism of particular religions should go in the 'criticism' articles. Since religions make such broad (and frequently exclusive) claims on the human experience, it is all the more important that good-faith criticism of them not be stifled. - Merzbow 20:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I have looked at some of those articles and I think each one has its own approach, so that none of them really are "precedent" for the existence of an article on "Criticism of..." anything else. For example, a few people on the talk page for "Criticism of atheism" say the article is too positive toward atheism. 6SJ7 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yid613 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is almost pure WP:OR, and if the other "Criticism" articles are like this one, they should be deleted as well. Avi 17:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Criticism of Islam/Christianity/Mormonism etc. -- Olve 17:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ delete per Homey Zeq 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said Keep. Homey 19:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A poorly written and scarcely researched facade without even the decency to state it's unwritten premise. The annoying charade of neutrality only adds to it's shoddiness. Shykee 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)shykee[reply]
Delete per above. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personal essay, original research as evinced by the lack of any source citations whatsoever. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite per khoikhoi. --Aminz 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite per khoikhoi. Article is of a worthy subject, it's just just unreadable in its current form so a rewrite would be appropriate. Canderra 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. --Batamtig 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current form. Understand article falls in category created by criticisms of various other religions. However, current article content doesn't offer or source serious theological criticism. Need a more scholarly approach for this sort of topic. --Shirahadasha 23:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Criticism of for any major religion is a lame concept. Any religion that's been around for a thousand years has its theological ducks in a row. All the criticism boils down to hateful nonsense, misunderstanding, or a different set of pre-logical choices. Parcel out the content to the appropriate articles, redirect the title to wherever; maybe to Christianity, or maybe we should just have one page, Criticism of other people's beliefs. And yes, I do support this approach for all the other Criticism of... pages. Except Criticism of Family Guy; we should keep that one. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom, why criticism, by nature, is a bad thing? Some criticisms can be quite helpful (but not all of them of course). All our progress is because of criticisms. But aside this, the articles like "criticism of ..." save many people's time who are trying to find such unbiased religous dialog. And also, it is a reality after all. Tom , I believe our understanding of a religon will not become complete unless we see how people have criticized it. There is a lot of hateful nonsense, misunderstanding there. True! But there is a positive side to the matter as well. Some people criticize another religon to satify their own hateful feelings. But there are some who are willing to hear the criticisms just to make life happier for themselves and others. As long as a page supports conversation among people from different religons, I will strongly support it. All this world needs is a place in which people talk to each other and share their view points with each other. --Aminz 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Writing such an article could be a great exercise for the writers. The replies to the criticisms would be the best part. It might also be an effective format for the presentation of basic facts about each religion. Although they all have answers, I guess rational criticisms do exist; and different people will be persuaded by different answers to those criticisms. I guess I can imagine how high-quality articles like what you describe could add a lot to our coverage of religion. I have doubts about our ability to do that here, but I think your approach, deleting most of it and starting over, is a legitimate way to go. If not that, maybe it could start as a section, Replies to common criticisms. It could lead to good results. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom, Agree with you about Criticism of Family Guy. Perhaps it could be expanded into an article titled Criticism of Television or perhaps Criticism of American Culture. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I concur that this article fails the test of neutral point of view, and I concur with those who propose strict scrutiny of similar criticism pages on other religions. Dauster 01:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Forgive me for sounding Anti-Semetic here but... shouldn't we garner some opinions of some more non-Jews?--Greasysteve13 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who is a Jew? On another note tho, I wouldn't say "anti-semitic" is what you sound. Tom e r ^talk 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a plus--Greasysteve13 07:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better to take it that way... Tom e r ^talk 08:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What way? What are talking about?--Greasysteve13 09:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you feel better to think that my saying your remark doesn't make you sound "not anti-semitic" was a compliment, good for you. What your remark actually makes you sound is completely ignorant of WP:AGF and hmmm... desirous to delegitimize every Jewish comment in the discussion. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not categorize you as a pontificatory ignoramus, but your comment was wholly useless, and potentially indicative of a very disturbing worldview, one which seems to indicate that Jewish opinions on Jewish topics are only welcome as long as they're outvoted by non-Jews. Take it how you like it; like I said, it doesn't make you sound anti-semitic, to clarify tho, it makes you sound quite assinine. Tom e r ^talk 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I usually assume good faith… its just I’ve had nothing but experiences regarding Macedonian and Greek biases… so forgive me for wanting some outside input. Besides you haven’t exactly assumed good faith towards the original creator of the article who created this article as a stub, Richard… and why he created it… as seen above.
I fail to see how I've assumed bad faith regarding the creator of the article or the reasons why he created it. (You can see from the article's talkpage that I think the rationale was fundamentally flawed, but that's a very different thing from a failure to assume good faith.) As far as your desire for "outside input", I'm not exactly certain to what you might be referring. "As seen above"? Please provide a relevant diff that supports your point. Regarding your apparently completely unrelated "point", what does this have to do with Macedonian or Greek biases? The assertion that Jews are inherently biased against an article entitled "Criticism of Judaism" is perhaps understandable, but without actual evidence, saying Jews are biased is at least a violation of WP:AGF, if not bordering on a violation of WP:NPA. Tom e r ^talk 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the article looks sh!t right now…. And needs to be fixed – but isn’t deleting this article… ignoring the fact that Criticism of Judaism exists. As long as the article is actually about Criticism of Judaism without POVingly critiquing Judaism, its okay. I mean the racist article isn’t actually racist. And the repetition article doesn’t repeat itself. And the nothing article doesn’t have nothing in it. I’m sorry for sounding like an idiot and I hope you are sorry for sounding sensitive.--Greasysteve13 04:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said anything anywhere about deleting this article, nor about ignoring the fact that Criticism of Judaism [i.e., independing of antisemitism], might exist. I'm not sure of the relevance of the rest of your rambling dissertation... As for my needing to "feel…sorry for sounding sensitive", I'm not sure what you're referring to. I sound "sensitive" for regarding your remarks as wholly inappropriate? If this were an AfD for Nigger, and you came along and said "can't we get some opinions from some non-Blacks", can you imagine the sh!tstorm that would raise? Your statement was just as inappropriate. It has nothing to do with sensitivity, and everything to do with decency. Tom e r ^talk 03:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops I confused you for someone else. Yes the "can't we get some opinions from some non-Blacks" crack would piss people off... but we I wasn't talking about race here... A better example would be saying "can't we get some opinions from some non-Christians" if the Criticism of Christianity got AfD. Yes I know Jew is also a racial term... so maybe I should have said Adherents of Judaism... but I didn't and sorry. P.S. I see nothing wrong with saying "can't we get some opinions from some non-Christians".--Greasysteve13 06:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, why not delete all the religion and philosophy articles? It's all unfounded, right? Oh wait, I remember, because reasoned discourse is important, even if it is of a delicate subject. So long as the subject is addressed openly, with due respect, and well--I say have at. MerricMaker 02:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep (consistent with parallel pages for other religions) with rigorous editing for NPOV and scholarship rather than opinions. Possibly appropriate redirects (or ??) from articles with related content (e.g. Anti-Judaism; I'm new and don't yet grasp the relationships between articles). Deborahjay ~~14:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)~~ 04:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user:Greasysteve13, user:Khoikhoi, and user:Hshhh, I´m not really here. --Inahet 04:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete only if all the articles on the criticism of other religions are deleted as well. --Musicpvm 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV title. --Sunholm(talk) 09:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User Hshhh, I´m not really here and Musicpvm. Delete only if other religions criticism articles also deleted. --- Faisal 15:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. While the article as it is is quite laughable, other major religions have a criticism article and this one should probably have to. Also, so it doesn't appear extra negative, a response section should be in order too. PHF 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Arguments that such articles shouldn't exist because they are inherently POV are pure politically correct nonsense. There is nothing special about any religion per se that makes it immune to notable criticism, and once there is enough notable criticism of a subject, it deserves at first a Wikipedia section in the main subject article, and eventually perhaps a separate article. Me and Aminz have been busting our asses lately making Criticism of Islam informative and NPOV, for example. - Merzbow 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a completely non-encyclopedic article, and I have a hard time imagining how an expansion would improve it. It's a hodge-podge of random negative thoughts, most of them having nothing to do with Judaism, and consisting almost entirely of original research. If the other "Criticism of <religionx>" articles are like this, then they should be deleted too. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unencyclopedic -ßott e siηi ^(talk) 23:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Why can't these be accomodated in articles like Islam and Judaism, Judaism and Christianity, or even Jewish Ethics or Judaism and Modernity?. Also, I don't see why those commenting here have to be held responsible for Criticism of Christianity etc. It's pretty uninformative to include these in the debate - they might be good and worthwhile, or they might not. One can't say without doing detailed analysis and requesting comments on all of them. --Batamtig 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid argument to make. One may argue that there is not yet enough criticism to warrant a separate article, or that perhaps the criticisms should better be incorporated as pieces into other articles. What I'm objecting to is the argument that 'criticism' articles are wrong on principle. An article 'Criticism of X' is no more pushing a POV than is the 'X' main article pushing the POV of X. The only thing that an article named 'Criticism of X' is advocating is the fact that there is enough notable criticism of X to warrant a discussion of it. That's all. In this particular case I find it extremely hard to believe that over almost 4000 years of history there has not yet been generated enough notable criticism of Judaism to warrant an article on it, which is why I think that despite the article currently being mostly a stub it deserves a chance to live. (And yes, I am talking about good-faith criticism, not anti-semitic garbage). - Merzbow 04:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any, or is this just wishful thinking? You have yet to convince that the article will ever become something like that, and that it will not just be a magnet for people who will say e.g. "Jews didn't accept the divinity of Jesus". --Batamtig 06:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The most "notable" criticisms of Judaism have occurred in the last 250-300 years, and this has nothing to do with the length of time for which it's been around. They are in fact, criticisms and disputes by groups within Judaism, see haskala, Reform Judaism. --Batamtig 06:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But it might as well be blanked. See Criticism of Islam which criticises Islam fantastically. Skinnyweed 20:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment criticises Islam fantastically surely the article doesn't "do" anything? Arniep 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Homey. CJCurrie 01:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ==-==רח"ק | Talk 15:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Satori Son 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The poor Jews suffered the holocaust, do they really deserve this? =/ SuperDT 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you want the Holocaust article deleted too then?--Greasysteve13 10:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least let the anti-semites understand one another. Greasy, I'll explain it to you. SuperDT was being sarcastic.205.201.150.62 13:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But he still said Delete... so I didn't take that chance.--Greasysteve13 04:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. Maybe if some prominent sources actually have something to criticise about Judaism rather than about individual Jews or Israel, then an article under this title could exist. This isn't it. Clinkophonist 22:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a complete ragbag of bits and pieces. At best, wipe contents and start again.--Runcorn 10:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If there is a Criticism of Christianity article, why not a Criticism of Judaism article? Or do you delete-happy-biggots feel Judaism is not a real religion and thus not deserving of a criticism article? --The Mad Bomber (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that there are other 'Criticism of' articles is pivotal. For balance we need all or none. This article needs fixing up but does now quote most of it sources, BlueValour 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that while there are some citations, as of right now the article says almost nothing. In an apparent effort to whittle it down to statements that approach "scholarly criticism, it has been reduced to eight sentences, and they aren't very long sentences. Even some of those probably don't make the grade of "scholarly criticism." Also, I have a strong suspicion that all of this information is already in other articles. This article just doesn't serve any purpose. 6SJ7 03:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Responding to 6SJ7 - but that's what wikipedia is for. Someone starts an article and someone else runs with it. And someone else edits. And in a while, we've got a mature article. It's the village raising a child theory. :) If we have all the other criticism articles per Hshhh, I´m not really here, we should have this article... else, we come across as biased in the other direction. Janet13 05:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The question of whether an article should exist is a separate issue from whether or not it needs work. I would guess 90% of Wikipedia articles begin life essentially sucking. - Merzbow 06:02, 25 June 2006 (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.