Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jewish organizations

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 keep. The list changed to a structured list, adding additional information, during the article. This invalidates the claims that a category could be an adequate replacement. The nom was also very wrong in the claim that this replicates a previously deleted list of people; people and organizations are different. The combination of both makes the nomination and the several "per nom" arguments have very little weight. GRBerry 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Messianic Jewish organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

List if non-noteables and redlinks. Seemed to have been created to push up the links in a Google search. Violates WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Is also pretty much a copy of a previously deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians. Yeshivish 07:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yeshivish 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC) --} And i subsequently added it to allot of similar Christian portals and alerted some active users who may take interest in this--יודל 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Yeshivish 07:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep they are indeed notable organizations and thus require a list just like all other lists.--יודל 12:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What other lists? Not every list is valuable - plenty are deleted every day. Just because there are "other lists" in general is not a reason to keep every list. The best lists are limited in scope, with a well defined definition that add insight on the topic. Is there value in comparing and contrasting these organization? Are some doing something the others don't approve of? Do they have a large amount of interaction with each other or a third party? Is it the subject of multiple non-trivial works? List of Hasidic dynasties fits all those criteria, and adds real insight into the topic. The problem with this list is that it is nothing more than a directory. Jon513 14:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it more impotent then the Hasidic list, they are active and its important to know who and what and where they are, all your 3 criteria are more relevant to to these organizations then to the hasidic groups, hasidic groups u can have a template showing all a list is where a template cannot exist because the only think they have in common is the name missionaries but their approach and goals may be totally different so we need them in one centralised list.--יודל 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? IZAK 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The collective Wikipedia community--יודל 03:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. IZAK 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and how on Earth can you claim that you find this list about Christian missionaries to be "... more impotent then the Hasidic list" and that Christian missionaries' "approach and goals may be totally different so we need them in one centralised list" and demean Hasidic groups: "all your 3 criteria are more relevant to to these organizations then to the hasidic groups"? All very topsy-turvy coming from you. IZAK 03:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't demeaned or belittled any group, u r evidently so desperate to push your Anti-Messianistic Point Of View that u have thrown by now the kitchen cabinets at me, what next?!. All i said is that the Hasidic articles are not that different, that's why a nice graphic template should serve the purpose of a list as well, these messianistic groups arnt that organized and are totally different each from other, that's why a template isn't the proper venue to list their detailed differences. Only a separate page can list and explain the difference through tables and forms.--יודל 11:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category is fine. The list doesn't add any insight into the topic. A directory may be useful, but wikipedia is not a directory. Jon513 12:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative keep. I have added a {{unreferenced}} tag to the list. --Eliyak T·C 15:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can this be called a useful list? The only thing which is useful is that they are in alphabetical order. It is a collection of external links which is discouraged on Wikipedia. They should be categorized. Chesdovi 17:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very useful because not all have the same goals, some go so far as to require to keep every Halacha some don't go so far, a category would be very general and not so useful. And it does have plenty of inside links.--יודל 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are Christian then they cannot "keep" any "Halacha" because by definition Christianity is a religion that replaces, opposes and disposes of Judaism, in spite of any distortion of facts and logic by avid missionaries out to "convert" unsuspecting Jews to a religion that Judaism rejects. IZAK 02:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's your POV but if u look inside this list we see that there is a actually a group requiring from their people to keep Halachas it could be they are lying but until u don't correct the wording i would assume u r only arguing that You dont consider their Halacha practice as valid because they also believe in Jesus i fully agree on this view but its only a POV not a fact. Feel free to add this very common Jewish view inside the article with proper sourcing but dont deny what the article says--יודל 03:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone add dignity to the equivalant of Flat Earth believers? There are also people who believe that the moon is made out cheese and that mice eat it and it grows back, but it does not make it true or intelligent, just another fairy tale, or perhaps a fat lie. IZAK 03:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to add dignity to those articles by editing out the deletion is openly trying to silence those groups, if those groups exist, u cannot just act like a maniac and cover your eyes and scream delete delete, deal with it; Wiki is not one group of who silences the other group, feel free to edit out other people but don't silence them.--יודל 11:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Five of the items listed already have their own articles, which is probably enough to justify a list itself. The list could also be significantly improved by directly adding content regarding those entities which do not yet have separate articles. However, we do generally prefer having lists over categories, and with the five extant articles I think we can reasonably say that is sufficient basis for keeping the list. Adding content regarding the existing redlinks however would significantly improve this list. John Carter 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. IZAK 02:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative Keep. Although I am the original creator of this page, I have long since left messianic judaism (I am an atheist/secular humanist). I haven't really kept up with the MJ project, but I think I can offer a NPOV. I do not believe this article violates any WP policies as I understand them, and do sense bias from Yeshivish. Whether he intends it or not, it is still perceived. However, this list needs some serious cleanup. There are way too many red links, and the whole page appears pretty blah. If someone were to really add some zing to it and create some articles on the organizations I think it should stay. I would also like to add that there are admins out there who are beginning to recognize that the non-Messianic Jewish community on Wikipedia are on the attack against the whole Messianic Judaism project/ articles, whether they intend it or not. This is absolutely inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia. We should all remember the importance of WP:NPOV! Should it come down to the nitty gritty of whether some articles stay or not this issue may come into play. -- Jamie Guinn 02:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I think this list should be kept. However, two issues do need to be addressed. (1) The concern over references and sources is quite a valid one, and work needs to be done to the list on that front. (2) The concern of Jon513 is also valid, the list needs to be more than a simple directory. What some may not realize is that organizations which meet the definition of Messianic Jewish or Hebrew Christian have existed for quite a long time. Historical organizations such as Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel founded by David Baron and CA Schönberger founded circa 1894 ^[1] though active 100 years ago, no longer exist. Such organizations need to be included in the list along side contemporary ones. Short descriptions, and chronological data need to be included as well. With such modifications, this list could become quite valuable. Why? Though Messianic Judaism numerically small in terms of membership, it is extremely fractured in terms of beliefs and practices. The Messianic Synagogue 90-miles from my house likely believes and behaves quite differently from one in the next state. This, along with the different doctrinal frictions that exists between organizations may not be apparent to a reader unfamiliar with the topic, having even a small group of Wikipedia Articles on Messianic Judaism. However, this list may help the reader gain a feel for both the (regrettably) sectarian nature of the movement, and, if enough links are followed, why the divisions exist. Moreover, with historical groups included, the reader will begin to see Messianic Judaism and Hebrew Christianity's organizational history much more clearly than any other article format would permit. Otherwise, the reader may naively assume that Messianic Judaism / Hebrew-Christianity just sprang into existence with Martin (Moishe) Rosen and the Jews for Jesus Organization, it did not. —Wikijeff 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree there is enough WP article content do justify the list, and articles for some of the others might quite possibly be justified as well. All it needed immediately is editing to remove the web links to the ones for which we have article. The links in those articles are enough. I just did that. From the comment above it seems the list can be expanded, though I never knew lists needed zing DGG (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cleanup is certainly needed, but that's not really a good reason for deletion. (Although if it hasn't been improved for months after tagging, then maybe revisit). --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Per not a directory. Put the notable ones in a category, but this list is directory information Corpx 04:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing a category cannot do. No set inclusion criteria. JFW | T@lk 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a directory.--DLand^TALK 11:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as simple listcruft. Reading through all the reasons to keep, I was struck by the blatant POV. It's a directory and a useless list that belongs on a private web page, not Wikipedia. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 13:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:stand-alone Lists. Though this list is incomplete and needs lots of work, the listing is interesting and helpful to gain a quick orientation to a minor sect related to Christianity. The.helping.people.tick 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added in the following from Wikipedia:Listcruft in response to the many citations of WP:NOT#DIR. It looks to me like this is a borderline case between these two rationales.The.helping.people.tick 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article. It is very appropriate for the article on Zoology to include a list of important zoologists within it, and for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books. Valid examples of standalone lists would include List of University of Chicago people and The Oz Books. In both cases, the lists correspond closely to encyclopedia articles—University of Chicago and L. Frank Baum, respectively—and in both cases the length and detail of the list justify breaking them out.

• Conditional Keep I've had my attention drawn to this AfD, presumably because I've tried to keep things NPOV in Messianic Judaism. It looks to me that this list, or rather table, has potential. However, most of the columns are missing entries and some have none at all. This limits the value of it at present. If the table were more fully completed, it would provide in a useful format information on the doctrinal differences of the various sects of Messianic Judaism. (start of added text) Enough progress has been made since I last looked for me to feel assured that this issue is being addressed. (end of added text --Peter cohen 10:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)) As an aside, I think the POV comments about "Flat Earth believers" and " just another fairy tale" do not help. As an atheist, I regard not only Messianic Judaism but mainstream Judaism and Christianity as untrue. But Wikipedia isn't about the truth of the subjects it considers; it's about having verifiable information about notable subjects. Therefore I have to shut up and put up with it giving information about those two religions, not to mention Islam and several others. I don't see why MJ can't be considered systematically in just the same way as larger religions and sects. --Peter cohen 15:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too many redlinks, and unstated criterion for inclusion (if there is a criterion). Having potential is not sufficient reason for inclusion, especially when the article is more than nine months old. --Redaktor 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in agreement with what John Carter said. Point made by Jamie Guinn is also very relevant. I really don't understand the aversion to redlinks. They highlight areas that are missing in Wikipedia. So we're to say that if those areas aren't filled in fast enough to suit someone's taste, any mention of that lack should be removed altogether? This list just needs a little cleanup. Strongly against converting to a category like JFW and Corpx suggest...doing so would lose what information we do have here about the redlink MJ orgs, and then someone would suggest deleting the category for not having enough entries, besides! ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per several above. Does things the category cannot, including having redlinks in. I don't see this as breaching WP:NOTDIR. Johnbod 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The current list of Messianic Jewish organizations is notable, and an article about them is needed especially since not every organization may or may not merit enough notability to have its own independent Wikipedia article. For a religion of only 100,000+ (and only one or two dedicated Messianic wikipedia editors) it's not that difficult to see notability issues arising in these VFDs, but the article should be kept for reasons listed above by other editors. I think it's an unfair assumption that such organizations are listed just to pad Google rankings. Such an assumption is not provable, nor ethical in assuming good faith. The biggest reason to include a separate article listing, is to prevent the main Messianic Judaism article from being crowded with detail, and a separate section on Messianic organizations in the Messianic Judaism article is not conducive to making that article any shorter - therefore a separate article is created to address bloat from the main Messianic Judaism article by providing a page with which Messianic Jewish organizations can be listed, explained, and referenced. I do agree that the article needs further expansion to make its usefulness more apaprent, but that alone is not he reason to delete it when it was just created. To delete it would be to delete notable material, notable references, and force the information back onto the Messianic Judaism article which is already bloated. inigmatus 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a good example of WP:NOT#DIR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is far too much "labelling" of people by their religion and/or ethnicity going on. Even apparently harmless examples like this have a corrosive effect on the project. We need "a page with which Messianic Jewish organizations can be listed, explained, and referenced."? Let's at least try and behave as if we've learnt lessons from what went before. PalestineRemembered 07:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question:Keep Is anyone of those, who think, this could be a good article with some work, willing to do this work? If someone declares his wish to complete this article, he should be given a fair chance, but if nobody declares his ambitions, we should not wait for a wonder to happen. This article had ten months time to be finished and nothing happened. We already have to many "might be a good article if...".--Thw1309 12:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have allready fixed some stuff in the page, i am greatly interested to learn more about those organizations, and i will keep on fixing it further.--יודל 13:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--Miamite 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JFW, DLand, Yossiea, others, and particularly per WP:NOT. --MPerel 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since some of the groups have articles we ought to keep the list so people can easily find their way to various articles involved in this section. The very fact that some people have used the deletion discussion to attack and denounce Messianic Jews shows that they are a notable group. If we were to delete this article we would suppress knowledge and that is not the way of wikipedia. I am personally a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have fundamental doctrinal disagreements with Messianic Jews, but I think that there is nothing wrong with them being on a list, and for people to denounce them as equivalent to the Flat Earth Society is both uncalled for and cruel.Johnpacklambert 04:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. Also, less of the hate speech in this AfD, please. Lurker (said · done) 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up. All organisations without an article need to go. And if/when each article is deleted through AfD (as many of them no doubt will be) then their table rows will need to go too. The current references are useless and should be removed. Better references should be found, and added here as well as into the main article of each organisation. —gorgan_almighty 13:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I don't think possessing a separate article is necessary for notability. Most lists on Wikipedia include people, groups, locations, whatever without their own Wikipedia articles. Lurker (said · done) 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lurker here. The main issue is whether the list itself is notable. If that is answered in the affirmative, then not every entry has to be notable. Instead the requirement is that it is reliably sourced.--Peter cohen 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I listen to Messianic Jewish ministry on the radio a lot. These organizations play an important role in the Christian faith although they are a small group when compared to other religious denominations. The list helps to be a good jumping point to other details about Messianic Jews. This is the kind of thing that should be in an encyclopedia.IndependentConservative 18:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This deletion proposal itself is non-NPOV. In addition, the initiators of it have a history of ignoring verifiable fact and notablility in favor of promoting an ideological crusade. Namikiw 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please comment on the AFD, not the nominator Corpx 15:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Keb25 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and a use categories instead per WP:NOT#DIR. --Shirahadasha 05:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Yeshivish--Truest blue 17:41, 9 September 2007 (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.