The result was no consensus. The sources are rather weak, but might be enough to pass GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete as no prima facie evidence of sufficient notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
<!--{{Expert-verify}} begin-->{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}{{Ambox
| type = content
| text = This {{{1|article}}} '''requires authentication or verification by an expert'''. Please assist in recruiting an expert or [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] yourself. See the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]] for details. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|<small>''({{{date}}})''</small>}}
}}<includeonly>{{DMCA|Articles needing expert attention|from|{{{date|}}}}}<!--
-->{{DMCA|Wikipedia articles needing factual verification|from|{{{date|}}}}}</includeonly><!--{{Expert-verify}} end--><noinclude>
David, let's get this straight, Talmudic writings are judged to be important the same way scientific writings are deemed to be important, when other Talmudists acknowledge them -- which is the same way that other scientists acknowledge scientific writings. Therefore it is irrelevant and absurd to expect either non-Talmudists or non-scientists to pass judgment on either Talmudic writings or scientific writings. That is a good basis to build articles, and WP is still building articles which is the main job of good editors and reliable contributors. To go beyond that is just being pedantic and the worst form of WP:LAWYERing. IZAK ( talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Off-topic attack on the nominator's choice of username elided
|
---|
|
The result was no consensus. The sources are rather weak, but might be enough to pass GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Delete as no prima facie evidence of sufficient notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 03:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC) reply
<!--{{Expert-verify}} begin-->{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly>[[Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>|}}{{Ambox
| type = content
| text = This {{{1|article}}} '''requires authentication or verification by an expert'''. Please assist in recruiting an expert or [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this article] yourself. See the [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|talk page]] for details. {{#if:{{{date|}}}|<small>''({{{date}}})''</small>}}
}}<includeonly>{{DMCA|Articles needing expert attention|from|{{{date|}}}}}<!--
-->{{DMCA|Wikipedia articles needing factual verification|from|{{{date|}}}}}</includeonly><!--{{Expert-verify}} end--><noinclude>
David, let's get this straight, Talmudic writings are judged to be important the same way scientific writings are deemed to be important, when other Talmudists acknowledge them -- which is the same way that other scientists acknowledge scientific writings. Therefore it is irrelevant and absurd to expect either non-Talmudists or non-scientists to pass judgment on either Talmudic writings or scientific writings. That is a good basis to build articles, and WP is still building articles which is the main job of good editors and reliable contributors. To go beyond that is just being pedantic and the worst form of WP:LAWYERing. IZAK ( talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC) reply
Off-topic attack on the nominator's choice of username elided
|
---|
|