Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erverh

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erverh

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

Fringe theory supported by a mix of synthesis and unreliable sources. The more reliable the sources are, the less likely are they to mention "Erverh" at all. Not a single relevant Google Scholar hit. Currently there's not even enough to justify turning the page into a redirect to Hebrew, which would be a better place for this information if it could be reliably sourced. Huon (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a reasonable search term. Content is not salvageable. --Lambiam 18:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding nuthin. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. If Wikipidia is fair then deleting this entry which is the proper pronunciation for "Hebrew," in the original tongue then you should consider deleting entries on Wikipedia that has Hebrew pronunciation as "IVRIT." For the simple reason that "IVRIT" is nowhere in the original text of the Bible. It is a Yiddish pronunciation of IVRI but is accepted on Wikipidia as a Hebrew word. It is not and patently false. Thus by deleting the proper pronunciation for "IVRI" and allowing IVRIT which is a falsehood, Wikipedia inadvertently suppressing the truth but is retaining and propagating falsehood. Therefore, if Wikipidia will a allow the false Yiddish pronunciation of Hebrew then it should allow the correct Hebrew pronunciation. That is only fair.

Also note that if this entry is incorrect. Bible scholars will easily spot it on the Internet. Therefore, leave it for Bible scholars who can write and speak Biblical Hebrew to challenge the entry. After that, wikipedia can consider it for deletion. But as it stands now, deleting this entry without any authoritative evidence is bad judgement.Anetta41 (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I have yet to see a reliable source mentioning that "erverh" is the correct pronounciation. Self-published books and random websites do not count. We also do not need to wait for experts in order to delete it. (Besides, how can we tell who's an expert and who isn't?) The burden of evidence is on the editor who wants something included, not the other way round. Huon (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, without reliable sources. (A pronunciation with a "v" exists in modern Hebrew, but it seems that the "b" was original. It is a common error to assume that the name of a language, people, or place used in the modern language must always be more "original" than the form used in other languages.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP; WP:NOR; WP:NEO. IZAK (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NEO. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This should have been speedily deleted. It's just plain silly. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:13, 30 November 2011 (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.