Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zohar


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Speedy keep --Angr/undefined 10:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Zohar
This article purposefully ignores a large amount of documented, historical data, regarding the non-authenticity and non-acceptance of the Zohar that does (and did) exist within the current and previous generations of the observant, Jewish world. Also, the article minimalizes the truth by using many emotive words, that display a terrible level of bias, and assume the truth and acceptance of the Zohar (from the start), while totally ignoring many strong and real arguments that have been made since its inception. Objective words like "claim" and "purport to" are totally left out of the discussion, when they rightfully should be the terms of choice. In addition, the author picks and chooses from an extremely limited level of chosen arguments (against his own position), which he/she then immediately answers in an extremely non-scholarly fashion, that leaves out the true complexities of the original objections that have been made over the past 1,000 years. In short, this reads more like an advertisement for book publishers of the Zohar than it does for an encyclopedic article. And whoever this author is, he is lightning quick to replace a copy of his original article back on line, after edits have been attempted. This just is not fair!

---

--Concepts (such as the position of the Zohar in Jewish Law) are totally glossed over, without any serious attention to it at all. The author makes it appear that the Zohar was universally accepted. Any old, legitimate, and dissenting opinions appear totally insignificant in selling of this article. Nor does he/she mention these specific objections. Only his/her own, which he/she is able to answer.

--The four main legitimate positions in today's observant Jewish world are ignored -- which are:


 * 1) - Partial acceptance: (portions of the work may be old and midrashic but not written by rabbi Shimon ben Yohai)
 * 2) - Some may may have been written by him, and some was not.
 * 3) - All was written by him
 * 4) - None was written by him

--No dogmatic (docrine oriented) criticism is permitted.

--No editing of this article is allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.76.154 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * These are criticisms which belong more in the article's talk page; you could even request that it be protected. It's hardly reason to suggest that the article be deleted. Keep - in fact, I'd vote speedy keep as a nomination in bad faith, except that the nominator is clearly new to WP. DS 13:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as a nomination without basis under the criteria for deletion (even if made in good faith). Notable concept, criticisms should be addressed by attaining consensus on the article's talk page by providing evidence of the above points there. BD2412  talk 13:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The only good reason not to speedy, wonderful BD :), is to give the nominator time to learn from our comments, which are more likely to be seen while the deletion page is conspicuous. Xoloz 15:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. There is simply no reason to delete it.
 * Keep as per above.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   15:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Friend nominator, please edit the article to reflect your concerns, or discuss changes at its discussion page. As policy, WP does not delete an article because of content disagreement. Xoloz 15:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per consensus, though it appears to have a history of POV problems; current version seems OK though (but I'm just skimming it). Still, nothing that can't be solved with POV tags and edit locking.--Isotope23 16:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per User:BD2412 though it may need editing. Makenji-san 22:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Deletion is not the way to deal with a problematic topic.  Jkelly 00:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Have an edit war if you must, but there is no valid reason to delete (or even nominate) this article. MCB 03:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The Zohar is considered the most important book in the history of Jewish mysticism. --Metropolitan90 03:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. WP:POINT. JFW | T@lk  07:07, 11 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.