Deletion of Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination)

Comment: As Jay describes elowuently below, basically every entry in the article more properly belongs in other articles, and for the most--if not all--part '''they are already there!''' To lump together various discussions based on the ephemeral connection of the Bible, through the concept of a G-d (not even restricted to monotheism for that matter), or through the fact that some adherents of a political philosophy happen to be Jewish, appears to be a , , and  which I do not see being surmountable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: AfD is not for cleanup.  The subject is notable, and has enough potential depth to warrant a standalone article.  The fact that the material currently in the article may be |original research or |synthesis is something that can be addressed through normal editing.  Similar articles (Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam) provide some (mixed) evidence as to the viability and usefulness of this kind of article. Delete votes above essentially amount to "this is a difficult and controversial topic which will likely suffer continual vandalism and POV pushing".  This is true, but is not currently a valid reason for deletion under deletion policy, Michael Jackson|for Christianity|good George W. Bush|reason
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: clarifying my own position as my completing the nomination was a procedureal action for an ip who could not do it themselves. I can't see how this article can ever discuss criticism in context or avoid issues of original research by synthesis . This is always going to be a subject where criticism is plagued by having a POV and lacking a balanced view and I think it would be impossible to write a balanced neutral article that relies exclusively on balanced sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Friends, I want to point out that  is an essay which does not and cannot supersede our policy of .  Deleting this article will ''necessarily'' put us in clear violation of NPOV: the only rational conclusion to draw from the existence of all our other "Criticism of. . ." articles is that Judaism is somehow privileged from it.  See also the sections on precedent and inherent notability in the  essay.   aside, deleting this article would ''require'' the deletion of the other "Criticism of . . ." articles on NPOV grounds, plain and simple, as far as I can tell
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:NPOV||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:POINT)