Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suppression of dissent
per nom, SPECIFICO,  and most importantly our deletion policy. The article meets points 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14 of -REASON, and Andrew's point, which essentially amounts to "Yeah, but at least it doesn't meet #8" shows a misunderstanding of our deletion policy unbecoming of an experienced AFD contributor. Citing the ''editing'' policy in an AFD in order to overrule a ''deletion'' policy argument is https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=%22The+Genesis+passage+that+Jesus+quotes+here+is+not+about+divorce,+it%27s+about+marriage.%22&client=safari&hl=ja-jp&prmd=ivsn&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix5p25sKjbAhUKhrwKHYf8DocQ_AUIDigA&biw=375&bih=553&dpr=2 Mark 10 Jesus on divorce levels of pre-Enlightenment textual interpretation. It also seems highly unlikely he's read all , or even any, of those books, most of which unsurprisingly show up in the first couple of pages of GBooks search for the title of this article: some of them may be unreliable, or may contain nothing of use for our article, or... it doesn't matter. Netoholic's ad hominem argument, which essentially says this AFD should be closed because Netoholic doesn't feel like abiding by AGF, does not even merit a response
— User:Hijiri88, 11:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:TNT||WP:DEL (Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over)