Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews in apostasy

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. — CharlotteWebb 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in apostasy[edit]

Delete - appears to be original research, sources have been requested since June and none have been provided Jefferson Anderson 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Jefferson Anderson arrives on Wikipedia on December 4th 2006, makes a couple of edits [1] and two days later he is nominating long-standing articles for deletion? This is highly questionable and one wonders if this is not the working/s of a troll? IZAK 02:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not OR, the article has links and ext links. Needs cleanup though. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely not original research, as Humus sapiens wrote above. shotwell 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid, not OR. Shlomke 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's real and encyclopedic --Oakshade 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a featured article by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a legitimate stub, doesn't fall too badly afoul of the WP:NPOV policy, and is reasonably well sourced via the external link to the Jewish Encyclopedia. An obviously encyclopedic topic on which we should have an article. The sourcing tag probably should have been removed back in July when that was added. GRBerry 11:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for sources. Suggest renaming to Apostacy in Judaism because the concept of apostacy, not claims about specific individuals, is the more legitimate encyclopedic topic. The article has serious POV issues, not the least of which is that it presents Midrash and Aggadah as fact, but the topic is a legitimate one in Judaism and I agree with others that sources can be obtained. Nonetheless, WP:V requires the production of actual sources, not reliance on participating editor's opinions, in an AfD. --Shirahadasha 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, I was being a little lazy when I wrote my !vote. I figured the link to JewishEncyclopedia was enough. Is there something wrong with that reference? There is also this book: Endelman, Todd (1987). Jewish apostasy in the modern world. Holmes & Meier. ISBN 0-841-91029-4.. 'Modern world' here means the last two centuries. There are also many scholarly articles about Jewish apostasy which show up on all the normal academic databases, although none of them are cited in the article or appear to have been used as sources. These, at the very least, show the subject is real, notable, and not original research in itself. Perhaps the article contains some original research or unverified claims, but this could be removed and we'd still have more than a sub-stub or dictionary definition. shotwell 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is legit and reasonable. --Shaul avrom 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - quite interesting actually. --Shuki 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article based on truth and facts, whereas the nominator neither cites nor displays any knowledge about this topic. IZAK 02:47, 8 December 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.