Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Levite Scribes the Sopherim


 * 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  23:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The Levite Scribes the Sopherim

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is original research; seems to be an essay. The citations given are WP:SYN and rely on other articles created by the author. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete a part of a series of OR by the author. Mukadderat (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research.  BradV  18:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete author is engaging in a pattern of posting non-notable OR, and could benefit from some tutoring. Niczar ⏎ 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and/or non-notable fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe I need to disclose a conflict of interest before commenting on this one: my family has a tradition of Levite descent. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The conflict of interest having been disclosed, this article appears to be unsourced WP:OR, substantially more so than the other two articles in this series. It seems to be a content fork of the Levite article. It seems to be an attack article with the general theme that Levites throughout ancient history have been bad, bad dudes -- mangling and forging the scriptures, slaughtering rival clergy, etc. etc. etc. The article's subjects are not living, so BLP is not in order. But nonetheless religion is a sensitive subject and careful sourcing, a neutral and balanced perspective, an encyclopedic tone, and an avoidance of sensationalism are particularly important for claims about the history of religious subjects, particularly ones which are likely to be controversial. We need to be able to verify claims individually. Among many other problems, the content seems to be casually interspersed with epithets. (An example is the repeated references to "Levite butchers".) Any legitimately sourced content can go in the Levite article and needs to be carefully sourced and be expressed in an encyclopedic tone. Academic perspectives are somewhat underrepresented in the Levite article, which currently consists mostly of religious perspectives. I would caution that content on academic historical perspectives needs to be balanced. There is no justification for creating a content fork to enable undue weight to be given to fringe or poorly sourced perspectives. --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been posted to the WikiProject Bible Biblical criticism work group discussion page.  --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the few references provided here are generally unreliable and do not support a number of the claims attributed to them. The few cases where sources are provided suggests that the article is riddled with original research syntheses. For example, the statement Jeremiah wrote concerning the scribes in his own time "Trust not in words of falsehood (because) they say; the temple of YHWH, the temple of YHWH, the temple of YHWH...How can you say; We are wise for we have the law of YHWH, when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" (Jer. 7:4 & 8:8) This verse was altered to read "vain pen" instead of "pen of falsehood" as it still stands in Hebrew is sourced to the website . This website turns out to be a simple religious Bible study website for Bible study in English, and in addition to not meeting WP:RS for an historical theory, doesn't seem to contain any statement at all about the passage in Jeremiah having been changed. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because any such topics should be in Levi. IZAK (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Levi is the article on the person (the son of Jacob and Leah). Perhaps you mean Levite, the article on the group? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an overlap with both Levi and Levite, but one thing is for sure, the article that is the subject of the present AfD cannot stand alone, if at all. IZAK (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per OR. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fringe original research. Jayjg (talk) 05:08, 8 July 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.