Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safek Brakha Daoraita

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Berakhah. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safek Brakha Daoraita

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a subarticle of Berakhah, dealing specifically with blessings in Judaism that may be Biblical rather than rabbinic in origin. The article is completely lacking context, relevance and understandable English. No scope for merge, so delete suggested. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shlomke (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable scholarly issue. Best left as its own article because its more of an in-depth issue then Berakhah, which is more general and basic. The article has a long way too go before it's wikified, but the main text of the article includes sources so there's no policy basis for deletion at this time.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Berakhah per nominator. IZAK (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shrink and then merge and redirect to Berakah. No need for an extended entry on this. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After cutting out all the scholary discussions (pilpul in Hebrew) the meager rests can be merged into Berakhah. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regrettably. Anything relevant can be merged into Berakha. This article is written like a Pilpul lecture and belongs in books examining the details of Halakha. Shlomke (talk) 06:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Berakhah per nom --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Nominator suggested deletion, not merger. Shlomke (talk) 03:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.