Deletion of I am the Lord your God

Comment: Have those claiming original research checked the references?  Specifically, what conclusions are drawn that are not in the references?  So far, no one has offered specific examples to support the claim of synthesis or supported the idea that there is enough synthesis to justify wholesale deletion or userfication rather than the more common improvement process by the broader editorial community.  The bulk of the article is direct description of material in secondary sources.  There are no "verify source", "unreferenced", or "syn" tags in the article.  Shouldn’t this have been done before nominating the article for deletion, per ?  How much of the original 5700+ word article could the original AfD nominator have read in 12 minutes between the article being posted and his proposed deletion - allowing zero time to notice the posting. How much checking of sources could have been done?  The burden of evidence is met for most of this article.  It is imperfect (see mperfect, reserve), but it is an acceptable start, and above average in terms of meeting Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, neutral point of view, notability, and encyclopedic content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:I||WP:P)