Deletion of Criticism of Judaism (2nd nomination)

Comment: into Reactions to Judaism or something similar.  I appreciate the arguments made by Dustformswords et al, and I agree that this topic is notable.  Furthermore, while this article clearly needs some work, I do not believe it would be beneficial to simply remove all this content by deleting the article.  ''However'' this article's title (and thus subject) ''necessarily'' restricts it to a point of view that is critical of Judaism.  '''I cannot see how an article that ''necessarily'' violates the |neutral point of view policy should be retained in that form.'''  If there were an article called Reactions to Judaism, and the criticisms section became so long that a fork called Criticism of Judaism grew organically out of it, I would definitely WP:!vote|!vote keep, but as far as I can tell, this is not a content fork of any article.  Most of the article that Special:WhatLinksHere/Criticism_of_Judaism|link to it do so from the Template:Judaism|Series on Judaism template, so it appears to be existing in a vacuum.&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: The Criticism of Judaism article should not be deleted as there are articles on Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, and Criticism of Buddhism. It is not neutral and  to have criticism articles on some religions while not on others. It would be incredibly biased and would never be accepted. Either there are criticism articles on all religions or no criticism articles on any religions with all criticism of religion as a whole covered in the Criticism of religion article. Articles should not be deleted merely due to content dispute. That is infantile and is not constructive work on Wikipedia. Articles should not be deleted because  otherwise many important but controversial articles would disappear from Wikipedia. This whole debate stinks of an attempt by some to censor Wikipedia, to censor criticism of a certain religion. ikipedia is not censored, it's a fundamental part of Wikipedia to be neutral and not censored. Wikipedia cannot work if is censored and biased. Censorship is bias
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:W)

Comment: This article is a great example of . The article is inventing, rather than citing, argumentation; "X, however Y" is a juxtaposition created by the editors of the article, rather than drawn from other authors' comparisons of X and Y
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: It's obviously a very notable subject, and  is not a valid reason for deletion.  Certainly the article could use some work, but that's also an invalid reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Pulling together information on the same topic from different sources is not .  Only when claims made in the article are not supported by the sources is it , which is not the case here.  Further, every other religion and large organization has a criticism article, including people (though these are now called "cultural and political image of...").  The article needs more |good faith editors, not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR||WP:AGF)

Comment: I understand the coatrack concerns, and the existence of the  vector. Nevertheless, the existence of an article like this goes to a much larger question of practice. The argument could be made that these invented topics formed around a collection of items with a common theme, and usually the result of a split from another article, aren't actual encyclopedia topics. But they are, according to our current practice. Coatrack concerns are an argument especially to delete any "criticism of" article -- but we have like a hundred of those (completely rough estimate... but there are alot; Criticism of Christianity is one). Now aside from my possibly OTHERCRAP-worthy argument, I personally think articles like this are valuable for research purposes, even if they're magnets for this and that; On Wikipedia you need to check the sources to find out what's accurate and what's not; this is nothing new, and if you want it to be accurate, perhaps clean it up. Or don't... but don't demand that it be deleted. I try to stay away from things that get me angry, which helps me be more accepting of things like criticisms of popular religions, yes even if they contain inaccuracies. But if I were writing a thesis whose topic was to refute known criticisms of Judaism, I think I'd be glad this was here. Just saying
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: It has not been explained above why the article is not considered notable, as I clearly see numerous sources and the fact that the article correctly lists types of criticism of Judaism, which fits under the subject. I do not see original research in the article, as the references very clearly define where the information in the article is taken from. POV problems (and OR problems for that matter anyways) are not criteria for deletion. I view the article more as a list proper, just with information for understanding. The subject headings all fit under the subject of the article properly and the sources show that the article clearly passes . There are numerous other articles on Criticism of religion (even a Criticism of Religion article), so I believe the subject is notable. Per , my showing of these other articles provides consistency for this article and should not be dismissed offhand. I also believe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism#FAQs this section on the talk page properly explains away other assumed problems with the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: utterly notable.  Criticism of Judaism has been a quite significant and notable part of Judaism's existence in the world (even apart from Anti-semitism and Anti-Judaism); there is no reason to eliminate the article simply because it lends itself to problems like 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: the article is simply too diffuse, and will always be. The article on Judaism should neutrally narrate different attitudes to to. We would not allow and article called Support for Judaism, would we. I am one who is often critical of the pro-Jewish POV pushing on wikipedia - but making sure articles on Judaism are neutral is the thing, not trying to balance them with pastiches of negativity. As for the fact we've got other "criticisms of x", well other crap exist doesn't really wash with me, and they should probably be deleted too. Would we have Criticisms of Communism, Criticisms of the United States of America, - or are we into  territory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: because the article is much too large to be merged into Judaism and because deleting this article would upset the balance of neutrality with respect to other major religions that have separate "Criticism of..." articles (see Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Mormonism, and many others, all of which are viewable at Template:Criticism of religion).  I don't see any problems with original research in this article; synthesis is arguable, but because of the list-like structure of this article (and the other ciriticism articles) I don't believe the claims of synthesis are valid either.  If they are, they can surely be solved without deleting the article.  Also, with respect to Spartaz's claim that the sources used in this article are not balanced, I'm not aware of a rule in  that states that sources used to verify claims but themselves conform to , only that their use in the article must.  If we did have to reject POV sources, sentences in the  page such as '' Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.'' would seem to not make sense
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: per |OR, |SYNTH and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYNTH||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Since, if my understanding of policy is correct, an article needs consensus to be deleted, it seems that at the moment there is a |snowball's chance in Gehenna of it being deleted.  There is a lot of discussion here at the moment.  Much of the content (and perspective of editors) in this discussion, though, could be very important; may I suggest that we direct our attentions to the article talk page to channel this energy into improving the article, (since it seems it will indeed remain with us
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: per Torchiset, Huldra, Noleander, ''et al.''  We have a "criticism of X religion/philosophy" on many religions and ideas, and the |ongoing consensus has been to keep these after discussions.  As long as we keep out the blatant anti-semitism and non-notable |fringe theories, I really do not see the problems.  There is ''some'' synthesis, but little in the way of |original thought, and lots of |valid citations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:OUTCOMES||WP:FRINGE||WP:OR||WP:RS)