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 Ebionites. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionite Jewish Community[edit]

Ebionite Jewish Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I have searched through various periodicals databases and other library resources, but I have been unable to find any sources detailing this modern movement. It appears to lack substantive coverage in independent sources. Without reliable sources, we cannot build an article that meets the basic requirements of our content rules. Vassyana (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, I can't find any third-party sources. If they emerge, some sort of article could be constructed; otherwise, we are just quoting their websites. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep You are mistaken. The first two references are verifiable third-party sources that specifically mention the EJC. Neither of them are vanity publications. --Ovadyah (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The jesusfamilytomb.com site has a page on the ancient Ebionites. It briefly mentions the modern revival, giving no details, and links to the Ebionites site. The other web link appears to be gone. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. The first website does seem to repeat information from The Jesus Family Tomb, which is clearly notable. The second link, though, doesn't seem to go directly to the source indicated. John Carter (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the back issue of the second reference is now broken. Changing my vote to a weak keep. --Ovadyah (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote back to Keep after finding online news article and YouTube video about the EJC. --Ovadyah (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —John Carter (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Weak keep - This google page shows a listing which might qualify as trivial in some eyes, but may help to substantiate notability. If the issue whose link is no broken online had some sort of paper edition as well, then I assume that it can at least theoretically be found again and that between them the three sources, including the minimal one above, might be sufficient to establish notability. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a regurgitation of Wikipedia material. It's even cited to Wikipedia. That publisher's sole business is scraping open content from the web and reorganizing it. The dead link was the same sort of material (repackaged Wikipedia material). All that is left is the barest passing mention on a rather far to the fringe website. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. As the creator of, and main contributor to, the Ebionite Jewish Community article, I suggest that we merge and redirect to the Ebionites article, which appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 9, 2007. --Loremaster (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposed to a merge per se, however it should be noted that the content was originally separated from the Ebionites article to make sure it could stand on its own. The results of the first AfD were inconclusive, however that was before the addition of the first reference. --Ovadyah (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you know, I'm aware of all that. ;) However, I now think this is the best way to preserve this information otherwise it should be deleted since the Ebionite Jewish Community is not notable enough to have its own article but I think it is notable enough to be mentioned in the Ebionites article. --Loremaster (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to the main Ebionites article and save any worthwhile content. Otherwise this has pretty much been an open example of violations of WP:NOR; WP:RS; WP:NEO and WP:NOTMYSPACE for a long time already and it's time it was put in its proper context where it belongs at the main Ebionites article that is shaky enough as it is. IZAK (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is on an organization that is not notable and it's content is based on sources that are not reliable according to Wikipedia standards. However, I disagree that it is an open example of violations of WP:NOR; WP:NEO and WP:NOTMYSPACE but, despite my neutral intentions when I created this article, it could be argued that it has become an open example of violations of WP:SOAP in the sense of Wikipedia being used as a vehicle for advertising and recruitment of a religious kind. --Loremaster (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not an open example of WP:SOAP. The content was originally written by several independent editors who became aware of the group. Members of the group later made a few changes to correct factual misstatements (e.g. baptist minister baloney). I support the merge and redirect suggestion if it is done within the larger objective of bringing the Ebionites article back up to FA quality. --Ovadyah (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I get 628809 ghits for "ebionite jewish community" and "shemayah phillips". Clearly other people are interested in the EJC. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I get only 529 for the phrase bionite jewish community when using quotation marks [1], almost all of which are their own sites, or Wikipedia mirrors; without the quotes, >99% of the references refer to the ancient group, not the modern. DGG (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I included "shemayah phillips" in the search to exclude the non-EJC enteries. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a search of my own and came up with a link to a web magazine called Kosmix with Jewish content that lists the EJC under Jewish Movements Baltimore Jewish Times. The EJC link has an abstract of the Wiki Ebionites article but also a link to the EJC website and some of their images EJC. Also, the first YouTube video on the Ebionites has a screen shot of the EJC website and talks about the contents. Check it out. --Ovadyah (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also check out this encyclopedic article on the Ebionites that mentions the EJC and appears to be independent of the Wiki article or dependent on a very early version. Ebionite The article mentions Talmidi Judaism with a link to a related article, and the Wiki Ebionites article never mentioned that group. --Ovadyah (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are all repackagings of Wikipedia material, making them useless for our purposes. --Vassyana (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Loremaster. I can't find anything relevant on ProQuest, either. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The sources provided are either are Wikipedia mirrors (making them useless as reliable sources for our purposes) or provide only the barest of passing mentions. Merging does not seem to make any sense, since there is quite literally no reliably sourced material to merge. Additionally, considering the only source unrelated to Wikipedia is well to the fringes of religious studies and provides only a very brief and uninformative passing mention, which makes for undue weight to the subject even with a brief mention in the main Ebionite article. If sources are found at a later date, we can add information to the Ebionite article. If sufficient sources are found, we can always have an article for the topic at that point. As it stands currently, there are not sufficient sources to even justify a short treatment in a broader article. --Vassyana (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean you are unilaterally superseding the votes of all but one editor? All we all then too stupid to know better? --Ovadyah (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, why are you making this personal? How does Vassyana making his case for deletion and against merging supercede the votes of others or imply that they are stupid? --Loremaster (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why? Because like most people, he's blind to his own defects that he projects onto others. Better would have been to produce some good sources to address the substantive issue. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Before I nominated the article for deletion, I undertook a search for sources. The search included the library resources of a large university, Questia, JSTOR, and Project MUSE. I additionally checked via Google and various booksellers for potential references. With the sole exception the bare passing mention at the Jesus family tomb site, my search resulted in zero sources that were not based on Wikipedia. --Vassyana (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Michael correctly surmised my objection - making sweeping pronouncements without presenting the evidence. Anyway, I apologize to Vassyana for making it seem personal. --Ovadyah (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Uh, I think Michael was criticizing you, Ovadyah. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, I see. Well, that's much better. :0) --Ovadyah (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal. The criterion that should be used to decide this issue is verifiable sources. Notability is a subjective judgment about undue weight. The article has one reliable source now that the link to the second source is broken - the reference to the Jesus family tomb site. Therefore, the existence of the group is verifiable, although one could argue it's barely notable (subjective). I propose we resolve the issue as follows: if the existence of the group is verifiable by a reliable source, then vote to keep it to resolve the AfD followed immediately by a proposal to merge and redirect, otherwise vote to delete and be done with it. --Ovadyah (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After having heard all the arguments, I would still vote for merging. --Loremaster (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. I am still voting to keep based on my reasoning above. However, if the article survives AfD, I am open to considering a subsequent proposal to merge and redirect. --Ovadyah (talk) 00:34, 15 May 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.