Deletion of The Levite Scribes the Sopherim

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 http://www.scripture4all.com. This website turns out to be a simple religious Bible study website for Bible study in English, and in addition to not meeting  for an historical theory, doesn't seem to contain any statement at all about the passage in Jeremiah having been changed. Best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:RS)

Comment: The conflict of interest having been disclosed, this article appears to be unsourced , 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 Wp:WEIGHT|undue weight to be given to |fringe or poorly sourced perspectives
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POVFORK||WP:BLP||WP:V||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: WP:UNDUE|Fringe |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)