Deletion of Conservative Halakha

Comment: what the nom means, apparently, is that this article is a  of Halakha. No opinion on that yet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: The nominator has clarified that the AfD nomination is based, not on a POV fork, but on a personal religious disagreement witht the subject of the article. The nominator wants this article deleted because he believes that "Halakha is not a concern in Conservative Judaism," and has gone so far as to clarify that he believes that articles on "''decision-making bodies''", such as the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, also "qualify for an extra speedy delete", not because they fail to meet , , or other legitimate Wikipedia policy criteria, but because the nominator personally disagrees with them on religious grounds. This is not a proper basis for invoking the AfD process. The integrity of the process should be preserved. If someone has a legitimate basis for an AfD, let that person nominate and provide a legitimate ground
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: This should not be in an RfD. There isn't even a claim that the material doesn't meet the usual criteria of , , . The reason given for deletion -- that Conservative Jews do not have an approach to Halakha distinct from Orthodoxy  -- represents a NPOV|POV and is simply not a valid AfD criterion since it simply doesn't address the question of whether the content is encyclopedic (many |reliable sources think the two don't approach things identically, but that's a separate issue.) The only question is where this content should be -- as a stand-alone or as part of another article, such as Conservative Judaism, Conservative responsa, Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, or Halakha. This question should be addressed in an AfM discussion, not an AfD. Finally, the Conservative movement made a very controversial decision last week about the issue of homosexuality. This article is the only place in Wikipedia that contains a detailed discussion of that decision. The AfD process should not be used to eliminate valid information about controversial (and notable) topics. Deletion is completely inappropriate. '''Speedy Keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N||WP:RS||WP:RS)