Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamsa and Bar Kamsa


 * 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. ✗ plicit  14:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Kamsa and Bar Kamsa

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This subject is a religious tradition with a fairly weak notability case, appearing almost exclusively on religious websites and with only passing mentions in independent reliable sources. References in reputably published books or scholarly texts are scant. Non-trivial coverage appears hard to come by in independent (emphasis on that again), reliable, secondary sources. The volume of academic mentions (just two on Google Scholar) does not suggest it is particularly significant from a historical or religious perspective, whether in relation to the events it is said to be about, or for eschatological purposes. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep This is an article about an legend concerning the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem, itself an historical fact. The story was published some 1500 years ago and the original text is in print and available online in the original and in translation. The article does not assert historical accuracy to the story, nor is there any miracle involved. There is nothing controversial here. The story is widely cited as a parable of the dangers of baseless hatred and is covered in the Jewish Encyclopedia and several other referenced sources, including an article in Psychiatric Times. Indeed a Google search on the article title produces some 7 pages of relevant links. WP:INDEPENDENT summarizes "Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved." There is no possibility that any of the modern texts have a connection to the original author(s) from a millennium and a half ago.--agr (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The nomination is not related to the parable being fictitious, which is somewhat needless to say. It was merely based on the limited non-trivial sourcing. Nevertheless, a hat-tip to you for your expansion on the sourcing, furnishing of the page with inline citations and, in particular, finding of the Jewish Encyclopedia entry, which is the most solid source so far. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "The nomination is not related to the parable being fictitious, which is somewhat needless to say." Except that when you prodded the article you wrote "The subject is a fictional tale of tenuous notability...".
 * To be frank, you seem to have difficulty with understanding the concepts of notability and independence as applied to Jewish religious subjects. This is another in a string of attempted deletions of articles about Jewish religious subjects that turn out to have significant sourcing. Jahaza (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jahaza: Address the content and not the editors. Please spend less energy on the crude aspersions and more on minding your manners. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a widely discussed story found in both the Talmud and midrash and which has an entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia and other academic discussion. The story remains widely referenced in even contemporary discourse.. Jahaza (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The legend is holds a significant place in rabbinical literature. Thanks ArnoldReinhold for expanding the sourcing—I'll add that Encyclopaedia Judaica also has an entry on the subject.  Ploni &#128172; 15:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added the Encyclopaedia Judaica reference.--agr (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as the sources that have been added to the article demonstrate notability, especially Encyclopaedia Judaica 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2022 (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.