Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strange Woman (Book of Proverbs)


 * 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. Can be draftified / userfied on request via WP:REFUND.  Sandstein  08:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Strange Woman (Book of Proverbs)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an essay, not a wikipedia article. It should be either deleted or userfied. Jtrainor (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already used in the article. The style of the article can be amended but the subject is definitely notable, passing WP:GNG regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All of those are primary sources and thus invalid. Jtrainor (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * + They are all secondary sources Atlantic306 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator has not understood WP:PSTS. In this context, Bible verses would be primary sources, but the citations are all commentaries. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. While this article does have some non-primary sources, it does read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. The text is somewhat confused, stating, "According to Proverbs 6, being a strange woman can mean that you are your neighbor’s wife." It would seem difficult to be one's own neighbor or one's own neighbor's wife. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftify. Yes, it's notable, and yes, the sources are reliable, but this is an agenda driven essay. Fixing it is not going to be a simple matter of going through WP:WTW.  The whole structure of the article is arranged to lead up to the final section "The Strange Woman Reclaimed" to promote the feminist position on the subject. Now I'm not saying that the feminist position on women and the bible is wrong, far from it, but it is not the mission of Wikipedia to promote anybody's position.  If it were not for the fact that it has usable sourcing, I would be at WP:TNT on this one. SpinningSpark 10:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftify per Spinningspark. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or draftify. I'm changing my recommendation because I don't understand what the point of this article is, in trying to justify the behavior of someone who, within the context of the Book of Proverbs itself, is not meant to be an actual person but rather a symbolic or archetypal character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect I have to agree with the nominator here. It seems to be editorialized without facts. How do we know if this woman isn’t just a character for this Wise Woman-Loose Woman dichotomy? Where are biographical facts about her like that of a Rahab or Mary Magdalene?Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or draftify I gather that "Strange Woman" is a notable topic in discussion/commentary on the Book of Proverbs. If there is to be a Wikipedia article about it, it should follow WP:NPOV, and cover "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". This doesn't (I don't think). It does have some references, to commentaries, which is fine (I cleaned the references up a bit so I could see how many there actually were), but a lot of assertions are unreferenced. It has other issues too, which others have commented on, and to which I would add that it seems to assume a lot ("the Strange Woman ... has been used to act as the antithetical character to Woman Wisdom" - who, or what, is Woman Wisdom? Is it the same as Lady Wisdom, mentioned later? And the Strange Woman "does not want possessions from you, but wants a man’s life" - I think that means she wants to kill a man, but I first read it as meaning she wants to live a man's life (which would fit with the later comment on "venturing into a male-dominated public domain".) Also, how do you "reap negative consequences on the male’s and female’s perspectives to a woman’s sense of self"?) I know that AfD is not about the quality of the article, but I am probably more confused after reading this than before. So, delete, draftify or even WP:TNT. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2018 (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.