Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish slave trade

Jewish slave trade

This article has no prior versions that are free of POV pushing. It was created by a single edit account as a coat rack. I believe that there is insufficient NPOV content to support a separate article. Any useful content can be merged into Slavery or one of it's sub-articles. If this discussion results in keeping the article, then it must be moved to an NPOV title such as Judaism and slavery. We already have Islam and Slavery, and Christianity and slavery so we should follow that convention. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is prone to POV edits in one direction or another, and as a result should be rewritten. Atari400 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being "prone to POV edits" is not a valid reason for deletion if the subject matter passes notability and reliability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point. Atari400 16:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a vote one way or the other in terms of deletion. But, while I agree with Tarc's comment about how "being prone to POV edits" is not valid for deletion, I think that this should follow the convention of the other two major religions as stated by Jehochman. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Judaism and slavery. There is the potential for an encyclopaedic article here, despite its status as a magnet for POV pushers, but the current title does not seem neutral and is potentially inflammatory. 'X and slavery' seems to be the approach used for other religions, so should be used here. Terraxos (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that we have Arab slave trade under a similar name, but that article is somewhat better referenced than this one, and anyway I can't think of a better name for it (Arabs and slavery seems even worse). Terraxos (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, perhaps, but logically more correct. After all, it was not Arabs that were being traded, for the most part, such as the case with the African Slave Trade. Atari400 16:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that those are sub-articles of History of slavery. There is almost new mention of Jews in that article. I suggest merging NPOV content from the present Jewish slave trade into History of slavery. When there is enough content for more than a short section, per manual of style's summary style guidelines, we can create a sub article for Judaism and slavery, as we have for the other, larger religions. Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fundamental problem is that many of these pages, at least at the time of their creation or through further edits, become not just highly POV, but actual attack pages. This particular article is not unique in that regard. Personally, I think the article should be renamed and rewritten to reflect current scholarly views of the matter(mostly debunking the notion, but in a historical context). Failing that, it probably should be deleted. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen, as too many editors wish to inject their own personal feelings into the matter. I learned that the hard way, just trying to rename another article into something more academic. Also, you seem to think I am the one who actually created this page, which I do find amusing. Atari400 17:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, change title, as above: I wasnt sure about this but then references 1, 2 and 3 do suggest there's a sort of relationship between Jews/Judaism and slavery. Also see this, so I support Jehochman's title Judaism and Slavery. Atari400 has been move warring here. Also, slavery is such an old concept, I'm not surprised that it was found almost everywhere so this article didn't come as a shock to me. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move for the above reasons, and Judaism and Slavery is a good name, unless Allegations of Jewish Slave trade gains traction. :) Tarc (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (EDIT CONFLICT) This article is prone to POV issues but so is almost every article involving a religious viewpoint or history. I think personally that the best thing here would be to rename the article per the previous suggestion and to keep vigilant watchover it in the interest of neutrality. This all of course, depends on the availability on substantially verifiable sources and information--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should also add a summaries and links to History of slavery and Religion and slavery. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]