Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in 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. --Core desat 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nudity in Judaism[edit]

Lack of reliable sources per WP:A and lack of apparent notability. Google search on topic shows no ghits at all except for this Wikipedia article. The authors' efforts to provide an unsourced "pro-nudity interpretation" of the Bible suggests that this effort may reflect original research. --Shirahadasha 07:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with Tomer's revised google search criteria. However, agree with JFW that WP:POVFORK also represents a ground for deletion given the apparent POV fork created with the Tzniut article, and WP:A#No Original Research remains an issue --Shirahadasha 05:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 07:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is probably a better-suited gsearch than the one provided above... Tom e r ^talk 10:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Tzniut. This is a total violataion of WP:OR and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX as it's just a modernistic pro-nudist mish-mash that makes no sense as it cites old Biblical verses out of context and links to secular Israeli nudist sites with pro-nudism POVs (with graphic pics to boot...) and assumes that this somehow translates into "Judaism" (a clear violation of WP:NEO by the way.) The article was obviously written by someone who knows nothing about Judaism, its views and how it's practiced, but does wish to promote nudism, which has nowadays been politically corrected (and redirects) to "Naturism". To be clear: The Jewish view of nudity is already recorded in the Tzniut article !!! One could "prove" anything from the Bible this way and add a dollop to it where it's mentioned on secular Israeli websites and call it or link it to "Jewish" or "Judaism" -- which would be totally dumb and falacious. Besides, classical Judaism as it has been practiced for millenia, and in Jewish law, forbids explicit displays of nudity, again see the Tzniut article in this regard. What will they think of next? Nudity in Islam? Nudity in Shintoism? Nudity in Atheism? Nudity in airplanes? Nudity in the White House? Nudity in Hollywood? (actually that is a good one) Nudity in the home? Nudity in the bathroom? Nudity in academia? Nudity in politics? (Or better yet, The politics of nudity!) The potential for this nonsense is endless... IZAK 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, and just look at the size of those Tzniuts!! -- Kendrick7^talk 06:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Izak. Pointless article filled with OR in the form of out-of-context quotes and personal interpretations. Daniel^C/_T+ 12:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect after stripping out original research. Alba 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? Tom e r ^talk 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, violates WP:OR, WP:NOT. Rambling essay/op-ed piece that belongs on a blog, not here. RGTraynor 16:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research Shlomke 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is mianly about references in the Old Testament which is not the same as Judaism. It talks about sex too which is not really about Nudity. So, unless some modern or talmidic sources can be found for this it is all a bit silly. David Spart 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is mainly about manipulating text to support a POV. This sort of textual manipulation is intellectual dishonesty, and using the Bible as a source is an obvious appeal to authority. Pushing a POV (specifically, in this case, that Judaism is even open to the idea that public nudity is acceptable (which it is not, as noted above, and already well-covered in the tzeni`uth article) is prohibited on WP. The author of the article should probably be gently reminded to be more careful when moving text around. Tom e r ^talk 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Delete and redirect but I'll be content with redirect. Tom e r ^talk 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izak. It's original research, lacks notability and is unencyclopedic nonsense.69.111.84.209 01:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, but while it is here, notice that there are two well-known illustrations (from Michelangelo and Masaccio) both of course in a OT but distinctly non-Jewish religious context.DGG 03:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fork. Redirect to Tzeniut. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tzniut, duplictated content. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. -- Olve 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is better to cover Jewish concepts, laws, points of view, etc. within the context in which they actually become issues. Creating a separate article like this is just nonsense, and it is too much of a burden on wikipedia editors to maintain it. --Metzenberg 23:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources, POV pushing, and seems to be a joke.--Sefringle 02:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Izak, nom, and Sef. JoshuaZ 17:09, 13 March 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.