Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sperm in vain

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 Religious views on masturbation#Judaism. Sandstein 07:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm in vain

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

I have performed a google search on all three bolded topic names Sperm in vain, Semen in vain, Seed in vain, and found nothing that persuades me that this is a notable or verifiable topic.The article is unreferenced and appears to me to be original research or synthesised original research Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of historical Jewish writings are not online and are not in English. I believe the references are available, the author just didn't work them into the text. Hopefully if he sees this AfD he could work on that. No comment as to notability. —Soap— 00:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or port to Wiktionary, perhaps. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion it doesn't seem like an appropriate wikipeadia article, or use Bushranger's idea. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please define why it is not appropriate more closely. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first sentance clearly contains non needed sexual content, as wasting sperm is not a very significant topic. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I fear that is not a valid reason to delete. We do not censor the project for sexual content. It appears to me to be non notable, but others may manage to cite reasons why my view is incorrect Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never claimed wikipeadia does censor sexual content, I am simply saying that it is a non needed article. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Ultrabalastic: The topic describes and explains a position in Jewish law that is its main base and that is why it's needed because it is a major point in Jewish law relating to male sexuality, it is not concerned with what "appears" to you personally. To Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle: If it is part of Jewish law then it is needed, for you to decide it on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no basis at all to delete. IZAK (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try not to be silly. You are bringing irrelevant rhetoric to bear on this. Stick to the point at hand, pun intended. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main article and the subsection at Judaism and sexuality#Forbidden sexual acts in Judaism where it rightly belongs because this is a valid description of the Torah and Talmud's position on this subject as the article correctly WP:CITES. As of Nov 29 '10, the article was ONLY 6 days old [1], therefore the nomination is also very hasty and violates the advice of both and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The essays you mention are simply that, essays. The nomination is neither hasty nor tardy. It is a nomination. Please form your views based on the world as it is, not the world as you wish it to be. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - To Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle: Hmm, "the world as it is, not the world as you wish it to be" now exactly what WP:POLICY would that happen to be? The nomination is most definitely hasty and flawed and sadly reveals both a disregard for the information as well as an ignorance of the subject matter. The topic of this article is most definitely a very serious and profound matter in Jewish law and it would be a grave error to dismiss that on grounds that the nominator did a weak and misinformed search. The subject is better known by its Hebrew name of "zera levatala" or "zera levatalah" (with an "h") literally translated as "[human seed] i.e. sperm or semen in vain/wasted/for no purpose" meaning spilling sperm in vain, that in English is classically known as Onanism, today simply called Masturbation. As a number of the links from Google prove, the topic is not trumpeted because of its sensitivity, but that does not detract from its importance to understanding male sexuality in the context of classical Jewish law and practice. You need to check up on the facts before jumping to hasty conclusions. IZAK (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are still essays. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - What are "still essays" can you please explain what you mean by being more specific? Did you look at the two Google links I cited with the multiple reliable references to this topic? Thank, IZAK (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I looked. Loads of blogs and "stuff" about or from people who have decided not to masturbate and other exciting stuff and which do not pass WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle: You may have "looked" but you obviously did not "see" let alone "comprehend" or perhaps you were "careless" and chose to "ignore" -- whatever the case may be, like in any search, you obviously did not winnow the wheat from the chaff in your Google search. Forget blogs, there are many reliable sites that are very clear and give the information, such as these books, academic sources and known organizations cited:

So all these, and there are others, if you had looked for them, are the WP:RS that can and should be brought into this topic and into the article. IZAK (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK - Those are great finds. YOu might want to try adding the info to Religious_views_on_masturbation#Judaism and Religious_response_to_ART#Judaism. Joe407 (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the irony of this is lost on you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Religious_views_on_masturbation#Judaism. Joe407 (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Religious_views_on_masturbation#Judaism and Judaism and sexuality#Forbidden sexual acts in Judaism. Between those two articles it should be covered. The term does not warrant its own article. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I'm neutral on the merge target, but a review of the article shows that there is not a justification for a standalone article on the subject. A merge would retain the encyclopedic content regarding the subject and would provide greater context. Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Not enough for a standalone article, and like Alansohn, I'm neutral on the merge target. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Either of the articles seems fine to merge it into, though I'd prefer Judaism and sexuality#Forbidden sexual acts in Judaism with a summary in Religious_views_on_masturbation#Judaism. Definitely relevant info for WP. Shlomke (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - The topic is notable, but the lack a clear name for the topic plus the lack of referenced material shows that the ability to create an article on the topic has not yet come forward. In regards to notability, I don't remember much from the bible, but I do remember it always talking about who begot who and things like he wasted his seed on the ground, he spilled his seed on the ground, etc. (See Genesis 38:9 and probably a lot of other sections). If the topic has been around that long, there will be enough material to develop an article on the topic. Until that comes forth, until that Wikipedian comes forth and multiplies the amount of reliabile source material on the topic to focus the topic, merge and redirect (AfD closer's choice as to the target). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2010 (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.