Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Talmud

:{{la|Criticism of the Talmud}} ([{{fullurl:Criticism of the Talmud|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Talmud}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The page was previously deleted through some combination of CSD and PROD and moved to the userspace, with the user being warned (at length) about the inappropriateness of the article. Despite this it has returned. The article in question is in an essay-like format and has distinct elements of original research. The referencing is an obvious problem; the bible is not what I would describe as an independent, reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete In this form it is unacceptable. The topic may be notable, but this article is a negative for the project. Note that copies of the page are on the user's page User:Standforder and in a subpage here User talk:Standforder/Criticism of the Talmud. Verbal chat 23:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Violates WP:NOR and is written like a personal essay. NoVomit (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The subject is notable, and could well be handled in detail from several different aspects, possibly in separate articles, but this article is not a practical way to start. It isn't OR exactly, just too disorganized to be useful.DGG (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Dubious essay- almost entirely synthesis. Nevard (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Actually, criticism of the Talmud is well within the Jewish tradition. However this is not an encyclopedia article. Author should find another outlet for his work. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete It might be possible to have an encyclopedic treatment of this topic - but this article isn't it. Jon513 (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Stubbify The topic is worth an article, but this isn't it, per my agreement with most of the delete !votes above. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Edit It's in point form, it is not in an "essay form", it can adjusted by editing serving as the basis for a future article. that's non-sense it lists many, many references, it quote professional sources in bold type. It quotes the bible to compare the basis of the critisim on the basis of theology. Deleting it is utter non-sense! Remember Freedom of speech, & freedom of belief. Deleting would only reveal your bias beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standforder (talk • contribs) 20:55, December 28, 2008
• :Really? It would show our biased beliefs? See, that's odd, because you've been accusing me of accusing you of being an anti-semite and generally acting like a spoilt child since I put the AfD up, and that wasn't even close to it actually being deleted. When a user starts harping on about freedom of speech and belief it is normally because no policy will support them and they are grasping at straws. There is freedom of speech; you are free to say something, we are free to take that something down. There is also freedom of belief, although I don't quite know how that comes in here; you are free to believe whatever you want. I, and the majority of the editors here, are free to believe that your page should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice against recreation in proper style, per Jon513. As it is, this is an unencyclopedic essay. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There may be a decent article on this subject someday, but I just don't see any way the present content or history can be of use. Jonathunder (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

: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.