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. The subject appears to enjoy only minor notability within the group he is affiliated with, and little to no mention outside the group; some of the external links are circular and self-referential, others appear less than scholarly; the entire Life section is unsourced (how do we know that events depicted in it took place?); no polemics involving the subject are cited. Essentially, we have little beyond mentions in the scholarship, that is, nothing specifically dedicated to the subject (such as an entry in a biographical dictionary). As well, I found no mention of him in Israeli scholarship and only one single mention in Hebrew at all (in a Messianic organization-hosted link). El_C 17:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Lichtenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Verification could not be obtained from independent sources. There are lots of messianic partisan sources adduced in the article - but nothing independent and impartial. - crz crztalk 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note:This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm confused. An early pioneer of Messianic Judiasm is only mentioned by subsequent followers? This is shocking how exactly? -- Kendrick7^talk 20:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not shocking, just need external verification before getting onto Wikipedia, that's all. - crz crztalk 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, he's been on the list of Chief Rabbis of Hungary since at least December 2004 [1]. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found references to him on library sites and bookseller sites unrelated to Messianic Judaism. He apparently did exist and wrote books, but I couldn't find enough concrete on notability to justify voting.--T. Anthony 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I take that back, he got deleted at one point: [2]. Hmmm... I like mysteries. -- Kendrick7^talk
• Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as both non-notable and not independently verifiabile. Could just as well be a messianic legend. --Huon 23:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't imply that he is a legend. I am just noting the need for independent verifiability, and opine that it's not available. - crz crztalk 00:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because in all probablity it violates Wikipedia:Hoaxes. IZAK 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator Avi 00:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep An early biography appears in Smith, Eugene R. (1894). The Gospel in All Lands. New York: Hunt & Nation. pp. 507–508.. The text is freely available on google books. It's unclear why he is sometimes referred to as Issac instead of Ignatz, and othertimes both. An Ignatz Lichtenstein also witnessed a Jewish birth certificate in Slovakia (then part of Hungary no?), on 25 May 1886 ([3], see also [4]), which I think would have been a common task of a rabbi. -- Kendrick7^talk 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having someone of that name who existed is a far cry from anything useful about the man. Furthermore, the book mentioned isn't obviously a reliable source. JoshuaZ 01:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note how I am not even disputing that the person existed - that would mean I suspect the messianic websites are lying - and I don't have any grounds to believe so. - crz crztalk 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I concurr with Kendrick7. Verfication has been provided. Please remove AfD. Pinchas and others, these multiple AfDs all at the same time for a lot of Messianic Judaism pages is starting to get bothersome. Admins, please consider this complaint in your decision. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but I'm starting to doubt these multiple AfDs for Messianic Judaism related pages are all being done in good faith. inigmatus 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, my name is not Pinchas. If you wanna talk about my faith, just ask. - crz crztalk 01:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verification that someone with that name existed is hardly very useful. JoshuaZ 01:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO. Has no reliable sources for us to write an article about. JoshuaZ 01:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The journal cited, The Gospel in All Lands seems to be a chronicler of worldwide Christian news, founded by Albert Benjamin Simpson; it in turn cites a magazine it calls the London Christian. And the story presented seems to mesh with what's in the wikipedia article up to 1894 in this person's life. There doesn't seem to be grounds to doubt its reliability out of hand. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, we have a partisan source getting its info second hand from a magazine in London about which we know nothing other than that its title hardly seems neutral. This hardly seems like a reliable source and in any event even if this were a reliable source this wouldn't show that he meets WP:BIO anyways. JoshuaZ 02:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To dimiss a Christian magazine as partisan seems rather post hoc ergo propter hoc. What kind of magazine do you think would report on a Rabbi who took an interest in Christianity? Car and Driver? The Economic Times of India? He seems to pass notability as the Messianic Jews are still writing about him nearly a hundred years after his passing. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I don't know, maybe a general newspaper or an academic studying the history of messianic Judaism would be nice. Some actual indication that the man passes WP:BIO and some data from reliable sources. JoshuaZ 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The following WP:BIO criteria is met for Isaac Lichtenstein: 1) The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field (emphasis mine). 2) Name recognition. Most Messianics familiar with Messianic Judaism and its history will recognize the name. 3) Search Engine Test -- Does a search for the subject produce a large number of distinguishable hits on Google ([1]), Alexa ([2]), Yahoo! ([3] or other well-known Internet search engine? Isaac Lichtenstein does. inigmatus 05:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, you'll have to forgive me but I would like explained what contribution he made that is part of the enduring historical record. Simply converting from one religion to another doesn't cut it. Name recognition is for "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions" so I don't see how that's at all relevant. Finally the search engine test is listed under the alternative tests that have not gained consensus. Indeed, the fact that all the search results turn up just messianic webpages if anything would make a search engine test turn up negative. And he only gets 639 returns anyways. If this is the best you can do, he fails WP:BIO so painfully it isn't funny. JoshuaZ 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you want to stay technical, then both the Search Engine, and the Verification test are listed under "alternative tests" in WP:BIO. inigmatus 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Honestly, JoshuaZ, you can't just dismiss his notability among Messianic Jews. You are starting to sound antimessianisemetic (is there s'posed to be a hyphen in there? nah....)

-- Kendrick7^talk 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • • That's going a bit too far calling an editor "antimessianisemetic" because he very justifiably questions the subject's notability?! --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, JoshuaZ: I do not believe you are an antimessianisemite, nor do I mean to somehow trivialize anti-Semitism (as much as I do wish my fellow wikipedians had decided to spell it correctly); I just let neologistic urgings get the better of me. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Hmmm, "antimessianisemetic" now there's a great neologism, we haven't had one like that since the days when the Polish editors on Wikipedfia coined "Anti-Polinism" as an equal to Anti-Semitism, and expected everyone to take them seriously. IZAK 02:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.It appears he is not a hoax.Entering his name in the Harvard library catalog turns up some of his books.He seems relatively unknown and may only borderline pass WP:BIO, except that he is apparently an important historic figure for the messianics so I see no reason to delete. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Miri: Citing the Harvard library means that they have a record of something that goes under this name, it does not prove that the actual "Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein" existed let alone that he was notable in any way, either to Judaism or Christianity. Sadly, many groups that have tried to undermine the Jews and Judaism over the millenia have created non-existant "personas" to suit their own nefarious ends, and this would be no exception. Another famous case in point is that of "Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich" (See article: "Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich is a non-existent figure commonly cited in antisemitic propaganda. One such fake is a supposed speech by "Rabbi Rabinovich" entitled Our Race Will Rule Undisputed Over The World to the "Emergency Council of European Rabbis" in Budapest, Hungary on January 12 1952. This forgery is taken as a "proof" of a Jewish plot against the whites in much the same way as another hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, invoked in the Rabinovich speech, is used as "proof" of Jewish global conspiracy." It should be noted that the time in which the stories about "Rabbi Isaac Lichtenstein" were created in the 1880s was a time when the modern Christian evangelical movement was born targeting the Jews and received huge amounts of money to do so from their Church groups and came up with many sophisticated ploys, and by concocting that some never-heard-of "rabbi" had legitimated apostasy (shmad) by accepting Jesus on his death bed was a perfect tool for the new brand of zealous misionaries who salivated at the thought of converting even one Jew to Christianity. Proof that this person is a sham is that not a single Jewish source even mentions him, and it is not because anyone is trying to hide anything. The history of the Jews and Judaism is an open book (see List of converts to Christianity from Judaism as an example, also the true story of an Orthodox Rabbi Israel Zolli who apostasised to Catholicism), but the enemies of the Jews and Judaism prey on ignorance and they have no guilt in claiming that falsehoods are "true" as they do in the cases of "Rabbis" Isaac Lichtenstein and Emmanuel Rabinovich. Finally, if people really are that hungry for a fake rabbi, why not stick with Rabbi Hyman Krustofski from The Simpsons (and I will bet that there are people out there by now who are absolutely convince that "Rabbi" Krustofski is a real person too because he has "appeared" on The Simpsons so many times.) IZAK 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If he turns out to be fake, all the more reason for an article on him just as there are articles on the fake rabbis you mentioned.He's a primary historical figure widely cited by the MJ movement so real or fake he meets WP:BIO.I *did* find it odd that there seemed no extant polemic against him (as Bsnowball mentioned), surely it would have created some waves.Rare as it indeed occurred, there were rabbis in history who converted to Christianity. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 14:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Miri: The problem is that this article is presenting him as a "real" person, and if he ever existed, he is not notable despite all the efforts to embelish his "resume" and his story. He is not presented in the article as a fake creation of the Messianics who have their own agenda. If the article would turn around and describe him as just another type of Rabbi Emmanuel Rabinovich or a Rabbi Hyman Krustofski then fine, but that is not what the openly POV Messianics are attemting to do here, they want to over-dramatize and pad something that probabaly never even happened in order to foist their real agenda here which is to lure Jews into becoming Christians by creating this overblown image of some unknown "rabbi" easing the path to "follow" characters like this Isaac Lichtenstein, and thereby assuage their natural guilt of abandoning Judaism. This is all about smoke and mirrors and guile in order to deceive the gullible on their path to apostasising from Judaism. IZAK 15:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Izak -- the only question in my mind is whether he was made up by evangelists in 1894; I don't think the Messianic Judiasm movement really existed at that point. If he's a hoax, he's a 100 year old hoax no one has debunked, and the hoaxers at the very least seemed to have picked the name of an actual real-life Hungarian Rabbi (Which may just mean Protestants lack creativity. I mean the guy couldn't even fly or anything). -- Kendrick7^talk 18:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • He also appears in a book by Gotthard Deutsch (d. 1921), a Jewish historian and editor of the Jewish Encyclopedia([5]), in the course of arguing that liberal Judiasm isn't any more a course to apostacy that Orthodox Judaism. He writes that an Ignatz Lichtenstein had "written pamplets advocating conversion to Christianity while still officiating as a rabbi" and Deutsch claimed to have such pamplets in his possession. See: Deutsch, Gotthard (2005). Scrolls: Essays on Jewish History and Literature and Kindred Subjects V1 and V2. Kessinger Publishing. pp. 118–119. ISBN 1417952172.. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nevermind that last bit. What he had in his possible was a biographic pamplet about the gentleman. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Kendrick: Firstly, I am not saying that the Messianics made him up, I am pointing to the intensified efforts that various evangelical groups (mostly stemming from England) made starting from the mid to late 1800s to get Jews to apostasize, and that they created or embelished figures such as Isaac Lichtenstein. In Germany and Austria Jews sadly did this by themselves, many becoming Catholic several generations after becoming Reform Jews, which is a fact. Secondly, the name "Ignatz Lichtenstein" is totally unknown and meaningless to serious students of any Jewish history. Sure there were Jews who became Christians, but what kind of "rabbi" was this guy? Do you honestly think that any Orthodox rabbis could get away with such a thing? If anyone thinks that, they don't have a clue about how Orthodox Judaism and communities work. There was always a sprinkling of mostly simple people what were called "meshumadim" (apostates) but they were viewed as the town freaks and were outcasts and not heros to the Jews. For example, read the weird story of a true life rabbi who became an apostate, Rabbi Israel Zolli of Rome, who was totally rejected by his community because of his association with the Catholics, which is very credible, and not like the puported case of Isaac/Ignatz Lichtenstein (and no-one, not even you, is sure if Isaac and Ignatz is the same person) who is painted as some sort of "hero" in this article, when, if at all true, at the time he would have been nothing but a total disgrace to his Jewish brethren who probably would have had him pilloried and run out of town at best, or perhaps even thrown into a local river. Could you imagine the fate of Jew who would have come into a devout Christian community or town in Central or Eastern Europe and preached to the gentiles to leave the "falsity of Christianity"? He would have become toast quicker than you could say "pass the fries, honey." Sad but true. 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
              • "when, if at all true, at the time he would have been nothing but a total disgrace to his Jewish brethren who probably would have had him pilloried and run out of town at best, or perhaps even thrown into a local river." I'm perplexed why this is any more tolerant than what Christians did. Granted Christians were worse because they/we had the power, but if either group responds by exiling or killing apostates I'm not sure where the difference lies. In any event Bishop Bodo was not "made toast" as far as I can tell, although he did flee to Spain. Likewise Abraham ben Abraham's story has inspired some doubt, but the difference is he's notable. This character being non-notable, and claims about him being untrue, is the most important thing. I'm worried many of you are getting into POV issues about whether Messianic Jews are bad or good and whether Jews must, or must never, feel "natural guit" at leaving. If this character is notable we should just present facts. Not opinions about how holy he was for "realizing the truth of Christianity" or how he was "a total disgrace and freak" for apostasizing.--T. Anthony 04:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • T. Anthony, I guess when topics are as controversial as this one, POV issues, unfortunately, cannot be avoided.It's a shame.MetsFan76 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • That sound's reasonable; but that's exactly where the source material rings with veracity, which portrays the Rabbi as rejected by his fellow rabbis in Budapest but, by refusing to be baptized, confounding them. His charisma, were it really enough to sway his own fellow small-town villagers (who would have been imaginably less sophisticated, metropolitan, and battle-hardened than any collection of Roman Jews), may have confounded attempts to ostracize him further, as this would have just lost the whole lot of them from the Jewish faith. If you are going to make up a Christian-ic hero, you don't have them not baptized and thus, theologically, hell-bound. And there are plenty of historical examples of charismatic leaders convincing people of all sorts of strange beliefs; Jesus as messiah is a common one anyway, Jewish religious and cultural solidarity notwithstanding. As to Isaac/Ignatz, the Messianic-Judaic sources claim he wrote under the name "I. Lichtenstein" and is thus often confounded with a certain "J. Lichtenstein"; it seems Isaac is a misnomer as a result -- that's just my OR, but it's odd how the puzzle pieces fall into place. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete surely if someone in his position had converted under these circumstances there should be a certain ammount of extant polemic against him from 'orthodox' jews previously associated with him? who did he study under, recieve 'ordination' from etc? (please, a 'conspiracy of silence' theory won't do, these beliefs are blatant apostasy, they would get their fair share of negative attention.) also if it can be justified & kept, shouldn't this page also contain the caveat that so called 'messianic judaism' is not recognised by any other jewish organisation?  ⇒ bsnowball  08:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he kept his faith a secret, and then when he was found out he left his position, then there would seem to be no point to make a fuss, besides, just because there is a lack of English material on the subject from a non-pro perspective, and the fact I don't think we can fully appreciate the Jewish Hungarian perspective of his day, makes this argument irrelevant. Jamie Guinn
• Keep. I am the author of this article and have included a lengthy bibliography of the Rabbi, any of these could be traced for verifiability. I also included on the discussion page information to the LCJE, a verifiable organization with numerous publications that can be referenced and checked. I also included the email of the main biographer. Check my sources, this man existed, and was who he was. Messianic Judaism may not be as notable as Greater Judaism or even Catholicism in numbers and therefore lack libraries worth of material. I also understand those of us in MJ are fighting an uphill battle with those with a hidden agenda of keeping us from making an contributions that would get noticed, including here on Wikipedia. I would ask the whoever makes the final decision would take into consideration the amount of tension that exists between MJ and Greater Judaism, and if need be, allowing this discussion to continue longer than normal so all avenues can be exhausted and the decider can get the proper NPOV perspective. IMO Jamie Guinn 11:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to add that this article may need future editing, but certainly does not meet the criteria for deletion, IMO. Jamie Guinn 11:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The relevant matter is not existence. The relevant issues are whether he meets WP:BIO and whether we have any reliable sources to be able to write about the man. The answer to both seems to be a resounding no. JoshuaZ 16:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read both policies and still believe this article meets both criteria, this is a simple article, not a thesis. Jamie Guinn 17:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Unverifiable, doesn't meet WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Independent verfication has been provided in the article. This article passes the majority of WP:BIO criteria: Verfiability (see sources provided in article), Expandability (its a relatively new article, and as more verifiable information is researched more info will be provided), 100 year test (future speculation) (Isaac will be known by Messianics 100 years from now), 100 year test (past speculation) (in 1906 people were already writing about him), Biography (references have been provided), and Search Engine Test (as explained by the original commentator). Taken together, this article does not violate the aims of WP:BIO in the slightest. Can you be more specific of which requirements this article misses, which outweigh the ones I just provided? inigmatus 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The guy seems to have accrued enough mentions in the literature to merit a place on notability grounds. It'd be nice to be able to say with certainty that he wasn't the product of some feverish evangelists from a previous century, but for the moment I don't see a reason to doubt the information provided thus far. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment A first and immediate problem is that this story is being presented as a biography of a person when there appears to be WP:RS evidence only of the existence of a belief by JfJ or some Messianics, independent corroboration of the story appearing to be lacking. There appears to be independent evidence of a person with the name, but not of the story about him as told. If this article was restructured as being about a belief, perhaps with a section on opinions on whether he was a real person, we could discuss notability etc. under the appropriate category. But the article in its current incarnation presents him strictly as an historical person and vouches for his actual existence, so we have to review under WP:BIO. And there simply simply seems to be very little independent evidence of his existence identified so far, not enough to meet WP:BIO. If he were a figure in a Messianic religious text we could identify him as such and say things like "According to [Messianic religious text]...", just as we do with figures in the Bible and other religious texts. Wouldn't there be newspaper accounts, literature or letters by conventional Jews opposing him, some independent contemporaneous evidence of his existence and activities? --Shirahadasha 00:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shira: So which way are you voting? Keep or Delete? Kindly clarify. IZAK 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Shira is onto something here. The article as currently construed meets WP:BIO in my view, however the application of WP:BIO criteria to the article is somehow still in debate, and probably the reason for this VfD. I'd support a possible change in the presentation, if that would quell the dispute outright and move this to a speedykeep; but regardless, I certainly vote against an out-right VfD of this article. Anyone supporting giving the article a chance to actually survive long enough to become a good WP:BIO article (with the potential to fallback to WP:N) then some kind of Keep vote is highly suggested. inigmatus 03:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good point inigmatus.I say give the article a chance to survive to see what its all about.Again, I'm seeing personal biases here.MetsFan76 03:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per MPerel.We should talk sometime inigmatus.MetsFan76 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepper GeeJo.--Oakshade 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for continuous POV lies. Editors keep writing he was a Jew until his death - which is not true. One who becomes a Christian, is no longer a Jew. Halacha is clear about that. Kendrick7 wrote: "from what I've seen, he never became a Christian". Well, excuse me, but the article clearly says so. This is quite obviously not POV. This article will never become neutral and factual. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar at all how one stops being a Jew via the Halacha. I hadn't realized that some Christian believers do not believe baptism is a requirement for salvation -- in particular, the Methodists who's forbears, the Methodist Episcopalians published the 1894 source which our earliest evidence of Mr. Lichtenstein. Please note that the older traditions are a little more clear on who is a Christian and who is not; that's where I was coming from on that. -- Kendrick7^talk 09:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daniel375, you are stating your own POV. The question of Jewish identity has not been fully satisfied even today. All major branches of Judaism are still fighting amongst themselves over Jewish identity as well as in Israeli politics. Messianic Jews are making inroads in Israel as being recognized to make Aliyah (those who identify themselves as such, others who claim Jewish heritage are still allowed to make Aliya. It is the orthodox who continue to fight the current definition.). Until the argument is fully settled among normative Judaism you cannot post here who is and who is not Jewish, this is purely POV. Jamie Guinn 10:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know of any halacha that says that a person who was born a Jew and converts out is not still a Jew. I'm fairly certain that Daniel575 made that up. Regardless, if has no bearing on this discussion. He figure inquestion is not notable.--Meshulam 12:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Continuous POV lies" are grounds for an NPOV template, but not for deletion if Lichtenstein is notable and there are enough verifiable sources about him to write an article. Currently I doubt both. The Rabbi probably was a real person, and there are some texts written by him (published by Hebrew Christian Testimony to Israel, according to Amazon, but not available). Is he notable as an author? As a convert? I doubt both. The utter lack of sources not associated with either Christian missionaries or Messianic Jews is also highly suspect. Concerning the Google results, there seems to be a painter of the same name who is responsible for some of the hits, leaving rather few about the Rabbi. --Huon 11:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable. If he did exist, I haven't heard of him. Regardless of whether I've heard of him, there is nothing immediately notable about a Jew who apostacizes. If you had to write an article for every Jew who stopped behaving like a Jew, Wikipedia would soon becluttered with articles about Jews who are no longer doing X Y and Z. --Meshulam 12:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Fails WP:V issues.Plus, even if he were verifiable (he's not) from reliable sources (they are not), which were neutral (definitely not), then he wouldn't be notable, anyway. Proto::type 13:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He IS notable, maybe not to Judaism, since as Meshulam stated that many Jews have stopped acting according to normative Judaism, but he is certainly to Messianic Judaism, so much so that he has had a Messianic Jewish Yeshiva dedicated to his memory and work. See [6]. Jamie Guinn 15:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He needs to be notable enough in general to be notable for Wikipedia. Issachar Bates is somewhat notable in the history of the Shakers and I could probably write an article on him if I desired. I'm just not certain he's notable enough in general to be worth it. (Not a perfect example as he might be marginally notable enough)--T. Anthony 10:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a Rabbi who taught that Jesus was the messiah seems to be notable, was apparently worth worldwide magazine articles about him in the mid-1890s, and would seem to be such a rarity that otherwise sane editors are jumping over themselves to ignore or dismiss what reliable sources say about him as if sources claimed he had three heads. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have now also found mention of him in a book by the French author Lev Gillet([7]); I've added the source to the article. He was a cleric in the Orthodox Church. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MPerel and GeeJo. TacoDeposit 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep real pereson, real faith realy notable to his followers VaclavHav 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC) User's first edit [reply]
  • Comment That isn't evidence of meeting WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that interested editors may wish to know that if you look at the talk page of the article it appears the sources which are claimed to be reliable can't even agree on his first name. JoshuaZ 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many Jews do you know who have two first names? Their given and their Hebrew. What's the problem? Jamie Guinn 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article currently claims his name isn't Isaac at all. It doesn't claim that Isaac is his first, middle, given, Hebrew, or whatever name, it claims that Isaac is an error based on a "misunderstanding of his pen name". So in effect it claims that all sources of the last 50 years, including the vast majority of the article's own sources, got his name wrong. Somehow that makes me doubt their reliability - or the article's. --Huon 09:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Chavatshimshon 05:06, 3 December 2006 (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.