Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biblical wedding (2nd nomination)


 * 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. JForget 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Biblical wedding
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article consists primarily of WP:OR, and is a personal essay (WP:NOTESSAY) written by a user with a topic ban on Judaism-related articles due to OR issues, User:Newman Luke. This topic is maybe notable, but not for a separate article. Some of the non-WP:SYNTH content could be merged to Jewish wedding or Jewish views on marriage or Bible-related articles. Further, I think a more suited title would be "Ancient Jewish wedding/marriage" or "Marriage in the bible".

See also : Articles_for_deletion/Marriage_in_the_Bible, an AfD for a very similar article, which resulted in deleting the page (redirecting to a disambig). I am also nominating the following related pages because of the very same reason (all are WP:SYNTH-based and written by same topic-banned author.):

--Maashatra11 (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete I would also support a merge with Jewish wedding or Jewish views on marriage, but not deletion. There's a lot of good, (though somewhat incorrectly) cited material that shouldn't be deleted that also has too many issues to keep as is. Cheers!
 * Delete Seeing that he was under a topic-ban and looking closer at the poor sourcing, we should probably just salvage anything good from the articles and delete them. ~ Qwerp Qwertus ·  Contact Me  · 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All - Don't merge. The author has densely cited material in obvious violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTESSAY.  The onus of discerning what might be saved should be no one's burden.  The author obviously spent considerable time on this misguided effort, so I recommend moving this article to the author's user space to give them the opportunity to post it somewhere besides Wikipedia.--Griseum (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Still suffering from being predominantly a now topic-banned POV-pusing editor's personal opinions and synthesis. Avi (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the title doesnt really match the intended contents, and its ambivalent whether this is an account of marriage practices as described in the bible, or an attempt to show how marriage was conducted during a historical period. some of the bible refs are really scanty, as we all know the bible is not crystal clear about some things. I dont think we can sort out what is accurately sourced from what is original research, so i think it would have to be userfied. however, wouldnt a topic ban include creating articles related to the topic, making userfication rather pointless? (im neutral on whether the user deserves a topic ban, not having researched it).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All for a number of very good reasons. The most basic being that after he created these articles, User was Topic-banned from Judaism-related articles mainly due to his reckless editing and writing methods that violated WP:NOR; WP:NPOV; WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTMADEUP such as displayed in these articles that fail in their stated goals. IZAK (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I bundled some additional articles (2 days after nomination) and notified all previous voters. Maashatra11 (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete All as violation of topic ban. Each of the articles has some problems about apparent original research. I get the distinct impression that references have been selected to support certain arguments, rather than the full range of citations available on the subject. Judaism is not just the old texts cited, but also obviously includes modern writings and evolved social customs as well. articles dont give proper weight to all historical periods. There may be some good references, i have no idea which are. My discomfort with the whole Megillah pushes me towards deletion, as they feel like original research to prove a point.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All per blatant WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. All these subjects are adequately covered by other articles; the only reason for these new articles seems to be the almost-total reliance on the views of the Jewish Encyclopedia and other secular sources. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2010 (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.