Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 February 12
2007 February 14 >

13 February 2007[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Messianic Judaism (edit | [[Talk:Template:Messianic Judaism|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Administrator User:Avraham thought it was a clear consensus to delete, yet the only consensus was by those opposing Messianic Judaism outright - notably Jewish editors who have a history of bandwagoning Messianic Judaism deletions. Furthermore it didn't help that the VfD was included in a "list of Judaism related deltions" from which the noticably anti Messianic Judaism Jewish editing community could engage in a mass deletion support. Administrator should have recused himself from deleting the template since he is part of the same group, is obviously biased against Messianic Judaism, as he has voted to delete other Messianic Judaism articles before - that through true consensus were retained. Furthermore, this VfD was submitted out of process since there was a previous VfD of the same template which took place just two weeks before with a resolution to KEEP due to no consensus. Submitter of the new VfD did not go through this review process, but simply bypassed process and submitted a brand new VfD. Administrator did not acknowledge this in his decision, and is clearly biased against Messianic Judaism; and the only clear consensus that was reached in the VfD was only a consensus of non Messianic Jewish editors - whereas both Messianic editors and non Jewish editors were in favor of keeping the tempalte. This is an abuse of power. Those that are not Jewish voted to keep the article or improve it, and many of the non Messianic Jewish editors voting "delete" voiced a similar opinion to keep the template even though they marked their votes to delete it - and the admin should have counted their votes as "keep" instead. Based on comments and reasons for votes, an outright deletion entirely was not the consensus of any two groups. This is a clear example of the vast majority of one group exercising its censorship over and against the efforts of a much smaller group that simply can not field as many supporters for its pages without multiple requests for comment from those outside the debate. The Admin should have recused himself. The Template is extremely useful to readers interested in learning about other topics that relate to Messianic Judaism. inigmatus 17:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the admin probably slightly overstated it by saying a "clear consensus for deletion" when 8 different users had voted for keeping. Mathmo Talk 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi inigmatus,
Given that the previous TfD was 36-19 and this one was 34-8, I think it's a pretty clear decision. Your point about bandwagoning is taken, but by my (albeit quick) count, 10 of the votes to delete are from editors not associated with the Judaism project, while 6 of the votes to keep are from editors not associated with the MJ project. Even if you totally discount the opinions of editors associated with either project (which obviously shouldn't be done), that's still a 62.5% majority.
I agree that it should have gone to deletion review after the previous admin kept it despite a 65% majority to delete (which he called 'leaning towards keep'), but once this one got rolling it wouldn't have made sense to disregard it.
As to Avi's involvement, it didn't seem that any other admins wanted to touch the subject - the previous TfD stayed open for 12 days, and this one was on its 8th. Of course the thoughts of any other admin would be most helpful here, but as Avi was likely the only one following this TfD, his delete call on an 80% deletion consensus shouldn't be too controversial. DanielC/T+ 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, the vote was 26 delete, 9 acceptible if significantly improved (either stated outright, in a roundabout way like "delete and recreate", or suggested in comments), 8 keep. The MJ community agrees that some of the criticism is valid, and indeed is working on improving the template. I think the 26-17 nonconsensus, combined with the out-of-process concerns, and the fact that people are actively addressing the concerns, should really tip in favor of keeping the template. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was adequate time for template adjustement to have been made during this process, during BOTH processes. That was not done. It is disingenuous to count those as "Keep". They stated that as the template stood, deletion is their choice. A completely different template (recreate) would be a completely different question. -- Avi 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an amazing observation Avi, since no one actually put forth any specific improvements during the discussion! Except for suggestions to delete listed articles based on a subjective POV that certain articles should not be listed on the template (and no one really gave any reasons except more POV), would have defeated the purpose of the template anyways. There were no IMPROVEMENTS offered. Just unsubstantiated POV. At least I provided SOURCES for the articles listed. No one disputed those sources. So again, why should the template have been deleted? This is POV censorship at best, and I will tell it like it is. I didn't see ANY good faith attempt to resolve the issue with any SUBSTANCE or SOURCING that discounted the sources I put forth - all I read were just POV comments upon more POV comments. The VfD was a show trial; and you should have recused yourself. inigmatus 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason demonstrating the inapplicability and impropriety of the template in question . Regardless, the issue here is process; which was followed. Create a new template substantially different from the one deleted, and it will be a brand new ball game. Further, your continued suggestion that I needed to recuse mysef is both against wiki policy allowing admins to close discussions in which they have voted, as well as, perhaps unintentionally, personally insulting. Shall we forbid you from editing Messianic articles because that is the faith you subscribe to? Shall we forbid you from editing Muslim articles because that is a faith you deny? You are either allowing your frustration to prevent you from thinking your comments through to their logical end, or worse. I will assume the former. -- Avi 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a frequent deleter of MJ content, and your historical bias against Messianic Judaism, your involvement in the final decision is in question. This wasn't a simple matter of having voted and then being responsible to delete it and then for me to go "oh, well he voted against it in the first place..." no - this is a matter of your historical bias and involvement in deleting MJ content altogether. You should have known that your involvement in closing this VfD, should have been reconsidered, especially in light of the VERY LAST COMMENT and request for third party involvement, in the VfD discussion. inigmatus 20:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChristTrekker,
Delete and recreate is a significantly different concept from keep. I don't think anyone at all thinks that there is no place for an MJ template - see the first TfD discussion for examples. What's at issue is that those who voted to delete believe that in its previous form the template was unacceptable, and there were no efforts to bring it around to a state that is not inherently deceptive as to the position of MJ as it relates to Judaism. Many editors, myself included, fully support a recreation of the template in a more accurate form. There were various suggestions as to what that form could look like in the original TfD, none of which were followed up on, indicating that the previous template was unsalvageable. If and when you or someone else chooses to recreate, I guarantee that members of the Judaism project will be ready and willing to help. DanielC/T+ 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To say it was "deceptive" is POV. There is no substance to the "deceptive" charge; and this is the reasoning for 100% of the delete votes. This useful navigation template refering readers on Messianic articles to other articles "related to Messianic Judaism" was deleted based on a POV reasons that said the articles linked to it were not related to Messianic Judaism. Nothing substantiated was offered. Ever. Oh except for the sources proving that these articles WERE related to Messianic Judaism - those no one disputed. inigmatus 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi inigmatus,
I understand how this must be frustrating for you. You're the best contributer to the MJ articles, and have certainly put a great deal of excellent work into them. Please step back a little, and realize that the aim of this TfD was never to censor MJ, but to present it in a fashion that's acceptable from what everyone can agree is a NPOV. You've had many offers to help recreate the template, so please accept them in the spirit of cooperation that they're given in. :) DanielC/T+ 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, thank you for your apparent understanding of my frustration. Your solution seems valid, only that the original design of the template has not been disputed: the template as it was designed by me, is to be a template showcasing articles directly related to Messianic Judaism and the terms, issues, subjects, and more that a visitor to a Messianic synagogue would encounter. This concept is not in dispute; since it appears on other religious templates. What was in dispute was that the articles I listed in the template "had nothing to do with Messianic Judaism" yet no one would provide a source as to why this is so when in fact I provided sources proving that they were relevant! That is my frustration. I want to see MJ articles and template improve in order to better assist the reader from an NPOV. But I can't do this if deletions of MJ material are proposed for no other reason than one's POV. I want substantial evidence and argumentation as to WHY certain articles could not be listed on the template as "relevant" to Messianic Judaism. No one provided any hard source, and worse yet, no one disputed the sources I provided proving otherwise! That is what is frustrating. Perhaps you can help - can you go back through the VfDs and post a list of disputed article names and the sources provided to substantiate such claims that they are "not relevant to Messianic Judaism" - or even better, can you go back through the VfDs and glean any noted disputes about the sources I provided proving each articles listed as being relevant to Messianic Judaism? If you could do that, then THAT WOULD be a good faith effort at improving the template and perhaps spark a reformation in how other Jewish editors should engage in the debates. inigmatus 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi inigmatus,
I'm not going to again point out the shortcomings of the previous template that have been highlighted by various editors for some time now. An offer to help create a new template is just that; please don't take advantage of it to try and prove a point. DanielC/T+ 09:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MJ is admittedly a small community. It takes more than 8 days to come to a consensus regarding direction to take for changes. If we could "call a meeting" and get everyone's input right away, sure. But not when we're talking about a small number of busy volunteers. The three common criticisms were that the template was too similar visually to another, that it was too big, and that it contained too many things not specific to its purview. The first one is the only point that might be somewhat easy/quick to address, and to me it's the least significant. (But I'm a techie, not an artist.) The others would require more time, and would likely be a gradual process of refinement rather than a single massive overhaul for that reason. Now, whenever the template is recreated, it will have to be manually readded to wherever it existed before—tedious. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use Category:Messianic Judaism to find the articles, and then just transclude the article. It should take less than five minutes. Also, as a pice of advice, the larger the new template becomes, the more you want to think about in which articles it is placed, because it will overwhelm the small ones. But that is just an æsthetic issue. -- Avi 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion With over 30 distinct delete opinions compared to less than 10 for keep, I think that is about a clear a consensus on wikipedia as you will find, outside of the WP:100, especially on a controversial topic. Process was followed accurately and undeletion is both unnecessary and counter to our processes. Further, accusations of bandwagonning will usually be made by parties in the minority, regardless of which side would have had their opinions most clearly stated. Also, it is reasonable for editors with specialties in a given field to have more of an interest in that field. Should we prevent all doctors from commenting on medical topics? How about all Sikhs from commenting on Sikh-related topics. The template as it stood was only helpful in confusing readers between Judaism, Christilanity, and Messianism, which may have been the intent of the authors, or maybe not. Regardless, there was plenty of time over the two TfD's for it to have been radically changed enough to obviate many of the issues, which was NOT done, and the template AS IT STOOD had a clear consensus to delete. Inigmatus, if you wish to create a new template, by all means, but please keep in mind the issues that consensus has shown to be problematic in the prior version. I will presume your suggestion that I a) abused my privelege, and b) should have recused myself is out of frustration, instead of a calculated insult and intimation that Orthodox Jews are not to be trusted in regards to applying wiki policies accurately in contentious issues. -- Avi 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ResponseFirst, as an administrator of the majority opinion, you should have recused yourself and let some other administrator OUTSIDE of the MJ vs J debate handle the VfD. Second, last I checked, 30:10 is not consensus when it doesn't involve the consent of all parties, and furthermore violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a democracy. A claim of bandwagoning, no matter who its from, should be taken seriously and not swept under the rug because it's somehow the 'norm' for minorities to claim of majority rule. This is a serious issue, and I am surprised that you as an administrator are not taking a stand against it, and want to seem to sweep it under the rug. As I mentioned above, there were no improvements offered. Just unsubstantiated, unsourced POV. inigmatus 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. -- Avi 20:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want me to "see above" and recreate the article not in the way it was "by consensus" determined it should not be... perhaps you could do the entire VfD a favor by explaining to me what exactly the consensus was and what the consensus says should be avoided? There was none. Sources for article inclusion were provided. Those sources were NEVER disputed. This template should be reinstated because there was no consensus to delete it outright, and no consensus in its improvement. There IS a need for a template describing a list of articles RELATED to Messianic Judaism. Is this an illegal idea? Last I checked, many templates exist like this as a list of "related articles". Are you advocating deleting those templates too? inigmatus 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)inigmatus 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This person knows what he is talking about. The people who are voting to delete are mainly just evading the issues and being counterproductive. "As per above" just doesn't cut it, especially not when the "above" makes no valid points for its suggestion of improvement whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noogster (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. There was an obvious clear consensus. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. See my comments above. DanielC/T+ 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I !voted to delete in the AFD, so I know for a fact that not all of the deleters were "Jewish editors" as Inigmatus claims. Everything looks to be in order, here. No reason to overturn. — coelacan talk — 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. This clearly the result of editors of one religion ganging up against a religion they don't like, because their two religions share so many commonailities, which was exactly their professed reason for wanting to delete the template. -- Kendrick7talk 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly not. I am not an adherent of any of the religions involved here. You really should read WP:NPA as well, because you're treading on very thin ice with that comment. — coelacan talk — 00:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well I'm not either. But to me that's the obvious gloss, and the sad reality of the situation. -- Kendrick7talk 17:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try dispute resolution. If I were an editor who spoke Hebrew and/or Yiddish, I wouldn't have closed this TfD. Seems like common sense. Regarding the general tone of the TfD, I'm reminded of the fact that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Kendrick's comments above make considerable sense when read in conjunction with Izak's nomination at the first TfD and a considerable number of pro-deletion views in both TfDs. At a basic level, it seems to me that DRV is the wrong venue for this matter. Whatever DRV may decide, the matter will not be resolved here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per above. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted The discussion relating to deletion was fairly detailed, and suggestions were given on how to make sure that this topic isn't deleted outright. I for example offered that Messianic Judaism be merged with a relevent Christianity template. Guy Montag 18:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Coelacan etc. Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (for the record) with rationale given above and in the earlier discussion. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, per various arguments. This is obviously a tricky discussion, as there is a clear difference in opinion whether MJ is Judaism or Christianity, but let's try to figure out how to solve that problem before creating contentious templates that hijack the premise. --65.192.167.194 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Valid close, debate had plenty of input. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. It was up for more than the required amount of days and had more than the required consensus to delete. Everything seems proper. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - and regarding "Jewish editors" please see WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't know why it would be uncivilized to point out that you, the closer of the TfD Avi, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Guy, PinchasC, JoshuaZ, 6SJ7, Daniel, and Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg are Jewish, or that other editors on the TfD, such as the nominator Ķĩřβȳ, Guy Montag, JFW, IZAK, Doniels, gidonb, Leifern, Batamtig, Beit Or, Olve, LordAmeth, Gzuckier, Kuratowski's Ghost, Shirahadasha, Redaktor, DLand, mikka, GabrielF, Kari Hazzard, El C, Dfass, Dovi, and Shlomke are Jewish, or at least speak Hebrew, as well. These allegations of bandwagoning aren't a form of personal attack; obviously cross-posting the TfD to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism skewed the results. -- Kendrick7talk 22:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of fact, JzG at least is Christian. (In fact we had a funny situation a while ago, where he presumed I was also Christian and attempted to use that "fact" for rhetorical effect). JoshuaZ 07:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Careful now, Kendrick, one would almost think that you are attacking a certain group of editors for who they are, as opposed to discussing process (not even the content of the article/template--this is DRV, not TfD). Somehow, without hearning some rather ugly words in my head, I am not sure how the linguistic capabilities of these editors affects their understanding of process, unless you mean to say that all of us are ESL, and we do not understand the guidelines? -- Avi 22:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I look at the TfD, the main argument I see is Template:Messianic_Judaism is not WP:NPOV, because it links to Judaism articles, and Judaism WP:OWNs them. Its the debate between these two guidelines that seems to have gotten lost here. -- Kendrick7talk 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Avi, I was eavesdropping and I totally agree with you. There is no doubt in my mind that Kendrick7talk was personally attacking that group of editors in a condescending manner and in flagrant violation of Personal attack and WP:CIVIL. I found his remarks offensive. You or anyone of the editors can file a complaint with an Admin. Hope this helps. I will keep an eye in case you need further help from me. Lcnj 07:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Threats of calling for admin action are uneccessary as are largescale bolding. Furthermore, I suspect that if admin action were called in, Kendrick would not be the only user who would be blocked for civility problems. Let's discuss the article and its AfD, not bicker and make threatsJoshuaZ 07:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • JoshuaZ, please be civil. You may disagree with my opinion but I don't!... Thank you for adhering to WP:CIVIL. and allowing me to remind the victims of such attacks of Wikipedia rules including calling for admin action, when necessary. Lcnj 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Hear, hear. I believe this is going to be the single largest point of contention between Judaism and Messianics on WP. Obviously the articles in question relate to Judaism, but since MJ is Judaism too, MJ has a vested interest in them as well. MJ editors shouldn't be censored solely on the basis that "the mainstream" disagrees with their view, with all Judaic articles wiped clean of mention of messianism. This is not asking for undue weight, as I believe most MJ editors are willing to have a parallel article to highlight significant, specific messianic points. But when mere links to messianic articles on judaic articles, or vice versa, are somehow not acceptable—that's a problem. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • First, limit your comments to the arguments at hand and not the person. Second, it is wrong anyway to brand those who did not clearly identify themselves. Third, I find it telling that such branding takes place in relation to Messianic Judaism, whose adherents go out of their way to prove their alleged "Jewishness." ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm going to re-create this template pretty soon (which seemed to be the consensus). But seriously, when I do, WHAT WOULD WE EVEN CHANGE? I think that the people who voted to delete our template really know why, deep down, they voted how they did; most of them hate our religion. Would would we add, or remove, or make different, to appease the nebulous demands of the people that voted to delete?. Because, in all fairness, the template as it was seemed quite perfect to me. The situation itself speaks much louder than any words: if our template was made to be "deceptive", or "tried to lend a false Judaic veneer to MJ", or convince a single Jewish Wikipedia editor that MJ is something it's not, then it's obviously failed from the very first edit. Messianic Judaism is relevant to every one of the links that was on that template, and not ONE SINGLE PERSON has been able to argue with me otherwise. Noogster 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, I see at least four serious policy based deletion arguments. The notion that relevancy is all that matters is also not accurate. That's one reason WP:NPOV has an undue weight clause- there are degrees of relevancy. In general, accusing people of "hating" is generally not productive. JoshuaZ 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That hits the nail on the head, Noogster. But Angus is surely right; your best bet is dispute resolution. -- Kendrick7talk 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I'm inclined to agree that in the best of worlds Avi would not have closed this discussion. While I trust Avi enough to think that he would not let his own opinions unduly influence the closing, appearances of impropriety can be almost as bad as actual impropriety. Furthermore, AGF aside, some of the comments from the traditional Jewish editors could easily be construed as calling for deletion due in part to religious attitudes and doctrines and not Wikipedia policy. All of that does not change that a large number of editors did bring up a variety policy based issues and similar causes for concern that were not well addressed. Even if one removes all of the traditional Jewish editors calling for deletion in a way that can be construed as being religously motivated based on what they said (and we interpret this liberally) there is still a majority for deletion. I see no substantial process issue or other possible problem. JoshuaZ 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joshua, if we lose our template, the members of the Messianic Judaism project can kiss the integrity and productivity of their work goodbye, because well will lose all centrality. A template is only as good as its links; the fact stands that all of the links in the template were relevant. Noogster 02:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What policy based issues? -- Kendrick7talk 02:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. People kept saying "delete but recreate". That should be treated as "keep but cleanup", since we don't delete things just to lose the edit history, and the idea wasn't that it shouldn't be recreated. -Amarkov moo! 02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I already have the Wikicode of the template (in the state it was in before it was AfD'd), so it will be very easy to do the re-creation process. Always keep a backup. Noogster 02:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed. On the talk page we had a conversation for possible improvements, and now that is lost to us! The "delete but recreate" suggestion is complete bogus that just makes life harder for those of us who are trying to improve things. I cannot see how losing the edit history benefits anyone. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • When a new template is created with the same name, I (or any admin) should be able to selectively restore particular edits from the edit history to regain those suggestions. -- Avi 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if it's not created with those suggestions, it will be a repost, and thus eligible for speedy deletion. It's reealy hard to improve something while it's deleted. -Amarkov moo! 00:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Coelacan, JoshuaZ, etc. 6SJ7 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone wants the template's code, I'll gladly give it to them. There's no good reason for starting from scratch; deleting the template's discussion histories is only antithetical to the purpose of improving it as is the consensus (which is also antithetical to having ever put it up for deletion). Noogster 01:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above, once a different template is created with the exact same name, it should be relatively simple for an admin to selectively restore the edit histories with the suggestions. That is not a big issue. -- Avi 01:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Chris, Noogster, et. al., I have restored the suggestions whose loss worried you to User talk:ChristTrekker/MJtemplate. -- Avi 02:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Avi, now that I look back on it it looks like Kirbytime is a person that likes to curse, throw around insults, and violate WP: CIVIL. He happens to be the same person that nominated for deletion; I think the man has got some form of personal reasons for wanting to have the template deleted, if you read his old comments. Noogster 03:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your accusations are themselves a violation of WP:CIVIL. Quit talking about contributors and start talking about content. — coelacan talk — 03:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Speaking for myself, i have no particular dislike for your religion, and I would and have always voted to support the inclusion of topics about it. But this template unfortunately became a divisive POV issue between you and what you regard as your parent religion, and the net result was disruptive towards both groups. There are times when including other groups articles in one's project helps, and times when it even helps NPOV. But the use made of this topic did not help, as was seen, and in my opinion seen correctly, as POV-pushing, for it amounted to a POV interpretation of the articles.
I would strongly suggest that if you were to introduce a new template, you limit its use to the articles that are distinctively about your religion--or I think the overwhelming consensus will be to delete it again. Some comments above indicate a disinclination to give you that chance, by calling for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted content. I would be reluctant to say this until it was apparent how it was being used.DGG 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted because as we have seen this template is nothing but a POV magnet that disrupts Wikipedia always. Its defenders keep on violating WP:POINT (which, in spite of Inigmatus's protests) is what it's all about since it can never come with anything original as it was only mostly a plagiarism of Jewish articles and the {{Judaism}} and {{Jews and Judaism sidebar}} templates. Let's be done with it once and for all and let the Messianic Judaism editors come up with something original for a change instead of wasting everybody else's time by turning WP into a battlefield, violating WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and just plain pissing everyone off, to put it mildly. IZAK 04:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Avi, IZAK, Kirby, and others: tell me HOW can MJ articles direct readers to other articles related to one researching about Messianic Judaism? Do we have to create our own Messianic Tzitzit article, or Messianic Festivals, or Messianic Torah, when Tzitzit, Jewish holiday, and Torah exist? Answer that fundamental question will you, to the entertainment of whatever poor admin has to go through your POV rants to see that there really is nothing of substance you are offering to actually help improve readers to be directed to MJ related content, and that in reality you wish to see MJ content on wiki go away and be reduced to a single paragraph subsection on some forlorn unreferenced page. Last I checked, other religions have similar templates directing readers to related articles not exclusive to the religion, so why can't we? Avi, you suggested using the Messianic Judaism category - GREAT IDEA MAN...only answer this $2000 question to the entertainment of a point: would you obviously then have no problem with us listing Category:Messianic Judaism on Judaism, Tzitzit, Tefillin, Torah, etc. etc. etc... all things that relate to Messianic Judaism, then? Let me read your mind: nope. Didn't think so. Stop contradicting yourself. I mean, you and the others are all for having MJ articles reference other wiki pages that relate to Messianic Judaism in someway, and therefore you will be fine with applying your suggestion to put them in a Messianic Judaism category, but do you realize what you are saying - for we could just put that category then on EVERY article that relates to Messianic Judaism? Perhaps realizing the folly of this suggestion based on the antiMJ bias Jewish editors have of anything smaking of Yeshua, perhaps you will then suggest putting such related article links in the "See Also" subsection of MJ articles? Ooh that's good, so then could you tell me why you deleted the template that essentially would do the same thing? You and others are not offering any true solutions. You are only giving us the runaround to meet your unmeetable demands. This is pointless. What good is AGF is you don't even contribute something worthwhile? Do a real favor for wiki and tell your List of Judaism related deletions friends to back off from bandwagoning deleting MJ contributions, while real people actually work on improving content instead of outright deleting it. We in the MJ editing community have bent over backwards to meet your catch 22 demands, and by doing so our numbers of dwindled to a frustrated bunch of just me and another editor. By offering advice that you yourself would VfD, revert, or remove later, you obviously don't care about the idea of actually linking readers of Messianic Judaism articles to other articles relevant to Messianic Judaism - instead you tell us to work overtime meeting conflicting demands that can not be reasonably met together. This template was perfectly safe, tucked out the way from interfering with any articles OWNED by Judaism on wiki, and only directed readers from MJ articles to related content on Judaism OWNED articles by means of this template. This TfD should never have happened, and it should be OVERTURNED and if there are ANY specific article listings disputed, such a dispute should be on the Template's talk page, and not in TfDs. So far no one offered ANY resistance on the Template's talk page for ANY of the items listed after I sourced them, and there was NO DISPUTE over specific articles after I posted the sources. The only thing that was done was a TfD long after I sourced the article and no one disputed; and in that TfD nothing was offered but a bunch of useless POV comments. Reviewing Admin, please note the length of time after I posted sources on the template's talk page, to the time someone someday got the bright idea to just TfD the thing without comment or dispute on the Templates own talk page. The first TfD was out of process, and the second one was even more blatantly out of process; but who cares right? Majority rules. inigmatus 05:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bringing my comments over from the discussion you began at User talk:Coelacan: "If "the Messianic movement is anything but monolithic" [Noogster's words], then this is an even better argument for making your own Halakha in Messianic Judaism, Messianic Jewish eschatology, Midrash in Messianic Judaism, and similar articles, since you could discuss all the different approaches that various congregations take toward these topics. What a great opportunity for you! There wouldn't be any squabbling over whether your content belongs in those articles or not, since there is Halakha in Messianic Judaism and the title of the article makes it clear; it would be obvious that your content belongs there. And there would be plenty of room to spread out and discuss different congragations' perspectives." I think you would see only benefits from making articles specific to Messianic Judaism. It would be a significant amount of work, but wp:there is no deadline and you would have room to discuss details and variances without breaching NPOV's "undue weight" clause which you would be doing if you tried the same thing at the general Judaism parent articles. As for "out of process", I still disagree, but it's not like all your options are off the table here. — coelacan talk — 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see here, Orthodox Messianic Judaism, Messianic Halakha and others have already been VfDed, or name changed to "prevent confusing with Judaism" or removed for some other POV reason which MJ editors just arent enough around to confront such POV mass-bandwagoned reasons. And your wp:there is no deadline is a noble concept but it didn't prevent the VfD of List of Messianic Judaism important figures, and although it was created as a good faith effort to address issues of "confusion" on the Messianic Judaism template, the article was also deleted for "being too redundant with Christian and Judaism lists." If we were to create Messianic Tzitzit or Messianic Tefillin those would be VfDed too for "plagarism" to use IZAK's words - and he'd be right, since hardly little if no content would change from Tzitzit and Tefillin to Messianic versions of the same article - and IZAK would see to it to inform every Judaism editor out there irregardless if they knew a thing or two about Messianic Judaism just to get them to voice a "deletion" vote per the nom! Don't you see now that their demands are a catch 22? Don't you see our work is futile? This admin review is to overturn a TfD that was unjustly deleted without any JUSTIFIABLE reason except the caving in to the so-called "majority" POV which when translated simply means the opposition managed to quickly throw in a ton more votes than the minority could feasibly put together to counter. inigmatus 06:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inigmatus: Why do Judaism editors need to help you create your religion? If you think that Messianic Judaism is a unique religion then prove it without borrowing from Judaism articles. This is exactly like when: "Elijah went before the people and said, 'How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.' But the people said nothing." 1 Kings 18:21. Thus if you are truly commited to Judaism, talk real Judaism and if you are truly commited to Jesus talk real Christianity, but why don't you get that you CANNOT utter them both simultaneously and talk out of both sides of your mouth and expect anyone to take you seriously here?...Perhaps you are confused as you are maybe more used to audiences of ignorant people listening to your sermons, but around here there are real scholars of Judaism who do not have time for your blatant distortions of Judaism. So far, for all your verbiage, you are like those people that were confronted by Elijah that said NOTHING since all you seem to do when people point out the fallacies of Messianic Judaism's arguments is to jump up and down and screech "we are like you, we are like you" (as apes copy the motions of the humans) which is what the monkeys in the zoo seem to be "saying" and "doing" when they see people and yet no-one pays attention to them either (amazing isn't it?) IZAK 06:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IZAK, WP is not a soapbox to enforce your POV. And this admin decision review page is not a theological debate page. No one from the MJ community ever asked you to "help" create MJ articles. You volunteered to get involved yourself. If you want to help MJ articles succeed, then help them succeed; otherwise you aren't helping at all, and just POV pushing - the same thing you accuse us of doing. There's a word for that: hypocrisy. If you haven't noticed, NPOV is what I'm desiring in all MJ articles... and this means even removing YOUR POV from them (or even defending against your attempts to POV delete them). You can gloat all you like that you have the popular majority on wiki; but truth isn't decided by popular opinion. Thank God you don't have the corner on truth. Let's stick to sources instead, and lets stay on topic: now do you or do you not have any sources to refute the list of articles that were listed in the template that you voted to delete? Yes or no? If you want to help, you'll actually help instead of POV rant again; otherwise I call on the reviewing admin of this discussion to OVERTURN this unsupported, out of process, biased POV TfD. inigmatus 06:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could both of you calm down please? Izak, Inigmatus is correct that you appear to be letting your personal theology get in the way here. Inigmatus, I think you need to calm down and presume a bit more good faith (I understand how Izak might be making that difficult). I suggest you take a look at the current list of Judaism related deletions to get some idea that having a large number of Jewish editors in favor of deletion doesn't mean they are jumping on some bandwagon. Furthermore, multiple editors (I think three at this point) who called for deletion have stated that they are not Jewish. And as I already pointed out there is at least one Jewish editor who initially favored keeping but switched to favoring deletion. This does not support claims of monolothic deletion votes based on theology. Inigmatus, if you think there was a serious process problem it might be best if you were to explain in detail what you think was out of process. I'd also like to point out that while everyone has been busy shouting over here Avraham has been doing very good work sourcing and NPOVing a number of the articles related to Messianic Judaism. JoshuaZ 06:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Inigmatus: You are the one that keeps on carping about Judaism editors not doing this that or the other, so when you are told that the Judaism editors do not have to help you create a new-fangled religion that is basically disowned by both Judaism and Christianity you go into verbal over-drive and cry wolf yet again. So grow up and cut out the theatrics because by now you have worn out the proverbial welcome mat from those editors concerned about the welfare and intellectual honesty of Judaism articles on Wikipedia. Nothing personal just noting the situation. IZAK 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Josh: I do not have any "personal theology" (do you?) the discussion, as always is about Judaism and the way that Messianic Judaism wishes to assume for itself something that is not true, mainly that Judaism = Christianity or that Christianity = Judaism. Why is there no Messianic Islam or Messianic Hinduism or Messianic Buddhism etc but there is only "Messianic Judaism"??? The answer is quite simple, that if anyone would claim that there could be such a hybrid between two opposing and distinct religions like between Christianity and Islam or between Christianity and Hinduism, or between Christianity and Buddhism then they would be laughed out of the room. But when the claim is made that there is a "Messianic Judaism" then some people think it should have its day in court when it deserves to be shown the proverbial door and thrown into the heap of oxymoronic fallacies. Yet Inigmatus keeps on arguing as if logic and facts do not matter here, only the desire of MJ's to be regarded as just "another" type of "Jew" when they are just a pretty poorly disguised set of Christians dressed in Jewish garb spouting Jewish slogans, but worshipping Jesus only. That is not "personal theology" it's just the reflection of the chasm that separates Judaism and "Messianics" --> just a euphemism for Jesus freaks. If Inigmatus dishes he must also be prepared to take it. Thank you, IZAK 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you read the sources that we have on the messianic Judaism article and the Jews for Jesus article (If you want I can track down the specific source) it isn't that simple. Combinations of Buddhism and Judaism are common among certain circles. Now, I think that's stupid and idiotic, but that's my personal POV. We can't make judgement calls based on our personal intepretations of things, we can only do so based on what reliable sources we have and how many there are. If hypothetically, the number of messianic Jews and "rabbinic" Jews in this world were flipped, along with the number of reliable sources discussing the relevant notions, the matter would be flipped. Regardless of who is correct. As I just said to Inigmatus, Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 07:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noogster and inigmatus have been asked to remain civil. Their failure to do so is still not an excuse for you to return the favor. The rest of us have to read this too, and we'd rather not have this discussion in the middle of a minefield. By the way, the Christian/ Muslim/ Hindu/ Buddhist/ Jewish/ Jainist/ etceterist hybrid you speak of is called Unitarian Universalism, or Baha'i, depending on your tastes in scripture. — coelacan talk — 07:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joshua: you seem to miss the point that verifiabilty deals with facts (sadly, perhaps the truth seems to be a too noble and a hard-to-attain notion and commodity on Wikipedia, but I do not agree with "the death of truth on Wikipedia" movement yet) and the fact of the matter is that Judaism and Christainity are two different and opposing religions. Now I do not say this as my own "POV", it is just a NPOV fact that is acknolwedged by probably 99.999% of all Judaic and Christian scholars. Messianic Judaism and its pushers maybe fall into the .001% of extremists (in the intellectual sense, I cannot find a better word) that just fail to grasp the fact that Judaism and Christianity are two rival and opposing faiths, in spite of, or perhaps because of, Christianity's early connection with Judaism which it has long renounced both institutionally and historically by its hateful acts against both Jews and Judaism for 2,000 years -- again these are FACTS, but Christians have long renounced the bond that the the Apostles had once upon a time had with Judaism so, quite simply, it is a fact that it is not within Inigmatus's powers or anyone else's to undo the Nicene Creed and the First Council of Nicaea by means of these tiresome and wasteful debates and actions that just waste editors' time.IZAK 07:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost but not quite, what matters is not that these are facts but that they are verifiable facts. JoshuaZ 08:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • IZAK, I ask that you remain civil. This discussion is not the place for your POV soapbox battles, wars of wits, personal testimonies, et al. If, for the record, you care, we Messianics are just as strongly opposed to Gentile Christianity/anti-Torah/a goy Greek Jesus/the council of Nicea/antisemetism as you are, but unlike you we have the reasonable sense to to believe that the corrupt dealings of Gentiles, the Hellenistic Nicean councils, the antisemetic spilling of innocent Jewish blood, et al, in any way fundamentally changes the historical Yehoshua/Yeshua and his early Pharasaic Netzarim talmidim. Again, IRRELEVANT to the discussion, though. I don't want to see it or smell it here again, is that clear? Thank you. Noogster 01:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historically, Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism. This is verifiable. Thus it makes perfect sense why there may be "messianic judaism" while the others don't exist. Don't descend to being ridiculous trying to make a point. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Judaism [...] Jesus [...] why don't you get that you CANNOT utter them both simultaneously" Says you. The MJ claim is that it is a completely valid expression of Judaic faith to accept Jesus as the messiah. Whether or not that is true is not the place of WP. That's what the claim is, and it's a verifiable claim. ⇔ ChristTrekker 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think User:Coelacan hit the nail on the head. You have the opportunity now to focus on what makes Messianic Judaism what it is, what about it you feel is so special and different, that Judaism or Christianity alone do not suffice for your service, belief, and faith. There is nothing "messianic" about Tzitzis, it is not a "messianic" mitzvah, it is a Jewish mitzvah that some messianic's still keep. Whereas belief in Jesus, and how to jibe the Passover seder with the crucifixion and resurrection is something unique to Messianism. Also, "Halakha" was VfD'd because that is a Jewish term, and one which also implies keeping the Torah, in which Moses said that all prophets who come afterwards and attempt to change the Torah, even if the perform miracles, are not to be believed. And Jesus changed Torah observance, no one argues that. (cf, Dueteronomy 13:2–6 and Rambam Mada, Yesoidei HaTorah chapters 7 & 8). Regardless and regardless, this is NOT the venue to discuss ANYTHING other than process, which was duly followed. -- Avi 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great response, but totally POV. Following Torah is as Messianic as one can get. The Jesus you and other Jews think changed Torah observance, is not the Jesus I know. I dispute anything that says otherwise, and I have the sources to prove it (Deut 13:1-7, Matthew 5, Acts 15, Saul, and others). But this again isn't a theological debate page. I'm not looking for a chance to separate Messianic Judaism from Christianity or Judaism. In my opinion, both are off track from true Torah obedience. One ignores Torah entirely, the other holds oral traditions higher than the written Torah. But your involvement in this TfD was inappropriate, especially after my last comment asking for third party comments. The template IS needed to direct readers to other wiki articles related to observances, practices, and terminology in Messianic Judaism. If one wanted sources for the articles that were listed, I posted them in the talk page of the template...which you have deleted. So what am I supposed to do? Pretend that hours of source work means nothing to you or others who voted to delete the template? No one said a word about the sources I posted. In addition to the other charges of out of process, I ask again for the reviewing admin to consider the mere fact that no single article that was listed was still in dispute on the talk page of the template when weeks later it went to a TfD. OVERTURN this TfD and lets get to work on improving it if people really have objections to the content on it. inigmatus 06:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • /sigh. See above. All the talk page suggestions are now on User talk:ChristTrekker/MJtemplate. And again, what process was violated? There was a clear consensus to delete the template as it stood. You have plenty of offers of help on creating a new one, myself included. Oh yes, Gartel, Tztzis, Halakha, are all disputed on that template, by the by. -- Avi 06:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inigmatus, I believe what Avi means to say and is supported in the Messianic Halacha AfD is that the use of the term for anything but Halachah as interpreted by rabbinic Judaism and ruling out Jesus is a neologism. Since the (as you would call it) rabbinic defintion is the only defintions we have any reliable sources for, that is as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the defintion. Remember, we work off of verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 07:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Gartel, Tzitzits, Halakha, sources were provided and not disputed. Process to dispute first in the talk page was obviously violated. Instead disputes were made known in the TfDs only. Second TfD was submitted before the first didnt even go to this deletion review page. inigmatus 07:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inigmatus, I cannot believe you even say this with a straight face...any other person would be ROTFLMAO x 1,000. IZAK 07:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually, I think that is the primary "process" complaint in this case! Don't re-TfD only a few weeks later—take it to deletion review. That's what it's here for! ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I am particularly incensed by the accusations of bandwagoning, a "crime" of which I am undoubtedly considered. My vote to the TfD read "Delete per nom and all above". And yes, I found out about the TfD through the "Deletion sorting" list on WP:JEW. However, I personally analyzed the issue at hand thoroughly and took both arguments into account before voting, making sure to carefully read the comments before me. My decision was delete (clearly), for the reasons that had already been enumerated before me, and I felt no need to add to the discussion when others had formulated their reasons to delete so cogently. To intimate that my vote, and votes like mine, should be discounted because they reflect an overly casual attitude toward the debate (or whatever the exact criticism is) is a textbook example of bad faith. --DLandTALK 07:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Not withstanding some of the claims made above, the deletion seems not to have been "out of process". The AfD was listed more than 5 days, it was properly listed, the closing admin was entitled to close, opinions for keep and delete were legitimate and made by legitimate and diverse users, suggestions were made for improving the article, and there was a consensus for deleting. So what is the case under the relevant policy? gidonb 08:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "listed more than 5 days, it was properly listed"—yes and no: it was a re-TfD only a few weeks after a prior attempt, rather than deletion review. I believe this is the main "process" complaint. "closing admin was entitled"—true, but given the very contentious nature of the debate, he would probably have been wise to recuse and find a 3rd party admin to review the situation. "opinions [...] were legitimate [...] diverse users"—debatable, since the TfD was mentioned at WP:JEW and thus very possibly got extra attention and "bandwagonning" that otherwise would not have occurred. "suggestions were made for improving"—not really, perceived faults were listed and some ideas can be inferred from that, but very very few positive suggestions were made by the pro-deletes. "there was a consensus"—democracy does not a consensus make, valid albeit unpopular views can be unfairly suppressed. It can be very hard to tell if that is indeed the case when the issue itself is so emotionally charged. This is why it is so important that a 3rd party admin review in these cases, as Avraham's involvement introduced the appearance of bias. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OVERTURN "because the person making the undeletion request had objected to deletion on bona fide grounds but was improperly ignored." Bona fide ground: Template removal does not meet ANY TfD criteria:

proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever:

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);

  • The template was helpful in directing readers to other articles related to other articles containing terms, concepts, and theology related to Messianic Judaism.

2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;

  • The template would be redundant only with the Judaism template, however no non Messianic Jewish editor will allow the Judaism template to be posted on Messianic Judaism articles! Such an action would cause an even more fierce debate. This reason alone is why the template was created from the Judaism template in the first place.

3. The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:");

  • Template was on all exclusive Messianic Judaism articles.

4. The template isn't a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement)

  • No editor demonstrated that the template could NOT be modified to satisfy this requirement. POV charges were addressed with sources provided in the template's talk page proving that listed articles WERE INDEED relevant to Messianic Judaism terms, concepts, and theologies. Sources were never disputed by anyone either in the talk page or in later TfDs. Furthermore, the nomination itself, and some votes counted as "delete" were votes actually acknowledging that the "template COULD be modified to satisfy this requirement." Exact details as to what specifically should be modified were not sourced.

As you can tell this TfD didn't meet a SINGLE TfD criteria. The tempalte was not proven conclusively that it was POV. No counter sources were provided disproving the sources provided substantiating the template's NPOV. Furthermore:

Step III of the process wasn't followed as notification was not put on the talk page either.

Just because several days passed and lots of people voted, doesn't mean the Messianic editing community got involved and consensus was achieved. This TfD should be overturned, and the sourcing for the article listings SHOULD be disputed IF this is an NPOV issue. As such, no one has done so. That is why this TfD is out of process. Totally. inigmatus 15:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn by same user from above -- Avi 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)*OverturnNo consensus was reached. VfD submitted out of process, and too soon after a previous VfD "keep". Bandwagoning in question. Admin has history of deleting MJ content and should have recused himself to prevent charges of enforcing personal bias. VfD discussion provided no clear consensus on outright deletion, nor improvements discussed came to consensus nor issues with template ever substantiated with evidence. Template for referring readers to articles related to Messianic Judaism is needed since much of the content in potential MJ articles can be found in Jewish and/or Christian articles. inigmatus 20:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oveturn AfD process not met. I'm mostly paying attention to the Wii Health DRV, and I'm surprised at the heatedness of this debate, so I thought I'd put in my comments. I feel like I'm an outside observer, and present a fairly objective POV.
    1. There were a substantial number of "Delete" comments that were not valid reasoning for a delete. Several of the "delete" comments were appropriate for a rewrite, which shouldn't require a deletion. In fact, recreating the template, meeting their desires would be allowed. So maybe that should be done, but create the template without POV, as I'm pretty sure that that can be done.
    2. Even the inappropriate Delete comments aside, the (reported) result was a majority of deletes, but not WP:CONSENSUS to delete.
  • The process was not followed. McKay 18:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion No valid arguments in favor of overturning were raised. Beit Or 19:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, several arguments in favor of overturning have been raised. Can you refute all of them as being invalid? McKay 19:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Alright, this discussion has become completely inappropriate. All theological debate and/or POV battles must end right now; they are irrelevant (and I am looking at you, IZAK). This encyclopedia is not a soapbox. Apparently, consensus is that: 1. the template before had something wrong with it and 2. those issues need to be addressed before we put it back up. However, Erev Shabbat is again fast approaching and there still hasn't been any meaningful conclusions reached as to what belongs, and what does not belong, on the template. Clearly, if there was some minor issues with the template that needed to be addressed, then a TfD is obviously the last thing we needed to be doing. My suggestion is that an administrator restore the template, and we take this discussion of potential improvement of the template back there to the talk page, because we probably have almost no other shot, I think, of reaching such conclusions otherwise (certainly not here). Trust us, we Messianics ARE honest, ethical people that want straightforward, NPOV articles as much as the rest of the community, and we will work with you gladly to improve the template if my suggestion is taken to action. Thank you. Noogster 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Even better, there is a copy of the beginnings of a revised template at User:ChristTrekker/MJtemplate, and all the suggestions are at User talk:ChristTrekker/MJtemplate, so a proper template can be built there and then re-entered into wiki templatespace. -- Avi 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Now that I look back on the old discussions for template: Messianic Judaism, I see that here at: [1] Inigmatus had made a case-by-case explanation for why each and every one of the links in the template was relevant and factually tenable. No one was really able to provide a decent rebuttal to his assertions about the link list. With that in mind, why do we need to go over this for a second or third time, when such an argument has already been decided by a landslide? We COULD repeat such a discussion again, just to be safe, but the genuine honesty of this whole situation seems to be on its last legs. Shabbat shalom. Noogster 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Marginal religion must not be surprized to have marginal support. No violation of deletion process. During votes for deletion Inigmatus was given a number of advices how to create a template which will be not too ambituous. `'mikka 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I really don't know what you mean by "overly ambitious template". That language is pretty nebulous to begin with. Inigmatus has concretely proven with little or no direct challenge, more than once even, that the list of links in the MJ template is solidly relevant. Noogster 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's why WP:NOT being a democracy is important. I understand that they are marginal, but I can't relate to complaining about their linking to Judaism articles from a template per se. Maybe it's just because I'm from a religion where there's some new sect springing up every five minutes. or maybe it's because of the words of Rabbi Gamaliel as recorded in Acts 5:33–39, but frankly if editors from the Church of the Holy Wingnut show'd up here tomorrow, and had WP:RS's validating their existiance including a belief that Jesus was an android, and the Virgin Mary was a toaster, yet they want their template to link to the seven sacraments, I just can't see wanting to shout them down, if they really believe their church has a valid claim on the sacraments. Now if they wanted to make St. Mary a disambiguation page to a range of kitchen appliances, I'd draw the line, you know? They want a see also to Virgin Mary (toaster) I'd cut them some slack. When you want to build an omelet of all human knowledge, that's gonna mean breaking a few eggs. -- Kendrick7talk 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That wouldn't be a problem, as long as they call it the Church of the Holy Wingnut. OTOH, if they decide to call it Wingnut Judaism, that would be inappropriate and confusing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So a religion can't call itself what it wants to unless it gets your prior approval? Good grief... ⇔ ChristTrekker 01:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion without prejudice to re-creation. My recommendation to the editors who support articles about Messianic Judaism would be to prepare a version of this template limited only to those topics which are undisputedly related to Messianic Judaism. It is not necessary that this template identify everything related to this religion because that is what the actual content of the encyclopedia is for. This template should not try to imitate Template:Judaism or Template:Christianity because both of those templates are themselves way too long. --Metropolitan90 06:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT It really is in poor taste to recreate the template as it is undergoing DRV. Not to mention, a breach of policy. -- Avi 23:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't mean that they should re-create it now while the DRV is still going on. --Metropolitan90 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT You're trying to make this situation seem complex, whereas it's actually ridiculously simple. Tzitzit is part of Messianic Judiasm, so it goes in the template. Jesus is part of it, so it belongs. So is the organizations section. So is Bible, or Talmud. These things are all related to Messianic Judaism, so there is no reason not to have them in the template. If we list articles that are ONLY specific to Messianic Judaism, I guess that means we can remove Jesus from the template, too! That's what, in effect, what you're saying, or else you have a preconceived bias against anything Jewish that might be inherent in the religion. Noogster 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't think that's what Metropolitian meant, i.e. The people who wrote the New Testament were all Catholics. You're not Catholic, therefore your template can't link to it. I think he's just not grokking the nature of the dispute. -- Kendrick7talk 01:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I understand the proposal Yeshua would be linked, rather than Jesus. It isn't clear to me why you would have an issue with that. JoshuaZ 00:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wii Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

user:mckaysalisbury believes consensus was not reached, particularly not in favor of a delete McKay 14:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Endorse the afd seems to be almost totally delete comments, with refutation of that being things like "The trivial section doesn't say anything about 1 page news briefs having a 1 sentence mention being trivial", "There is nothing in Wikipedia policy (that I'm aware of) that specifically excludes blog entries. It does say things about comments to a blog post being non-reliable, but doesn't specifically exclude the blog posts themselves". --pgk 15:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per clear delete consensus among established users. Valid AFD. --Coredesat 16:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse Consensus had been reached in the Afd, with a wide majority in favor of the deletion. CharonX/talk 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstand the difference between WP:CONSENSUS and majority. McKay 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus was extremely clear. --- RockMFR 16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If there were any valid refutations of the basis for deletion in the keep !votes, I didn't see them. This was an unusually well-supported deletion. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should make my point more clear. I don't think that consensus was reached because I was still discussing the points that people were making. I was surfing around last night trying to find information on new Wii games, and I saw that the article was up for deletion, so I made a few comments, I found that I thought that people were making decisions with incomplete information, so I tried to fill them in. A discussion started, then the AfD closed, and the article deleted. Yes, I understand that there were a majority, but the issues raised with the minority were not resolved, and therefore consensus was not reached. Am I mistaken in any of my assumptions? Where is this going wrong? McKay 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't have a chance to reply to your last post in the AfD before it was closed. My feeling remained constant: the only thing that can be said about the game is that it might come out some time, and not even its name is known for sure. It's not enough to sustain an article right now, but I would not be opposed to recreation in the future once a solid announcement by Nintendo is made. Leebo86 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Having a firm working title is *not* required for wikipedia. We no next to nothing about Star Trek XI, yet there's an article. The early versions of the article (over a year ago!) had a 3 year release span, were filled with speculation and rumors. Harry Potter 7, Shrek 4, and many others have articles and don't have a confirmed title. Is having a confirmed title a requirement for Wikipedia? No. So please stop using that as an excuse.
  2. There was an official announcement from Nintendo. So sure, there's a possibility that it might not come out, but an official announcement from Nintendo clearly passes WP:Crystal. The original announcement is in Japanese, and I'm not skilled enough to find it. Yes, this means that it might not come out in the US, but that doesn't make it any less notable. Heck, there's an entire category dedicated to Category:Japan exclusive computer and video games that's about 450 strong.McKay 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep the discussions open indefinitely, if some new information comes in during the closing of a debate where the rest of the participants don't see that information a review may be relevant, but should be on the basis of new material rather than no-consensus. Alternativley simple rewrites addressing the core issues of the AFD maybe a reasonable alternative. However realistically the points you made weren't that strong and to my view wouldn't invalidate the AFD. Attempting to suggest 1 sentence may not be trivial just because the policy doesn't explicitly spell it out seems to be a stretch (What would you believe to be trivial?). As for blog posting being considered reliable, anyone can create a blog for little or no cost and post anything they want. I can create a blog (or blogs) saying the exact opposite of any you care to point out, do you consider them reliable? You need to see WP:RS#Self-published_sources. --pgk 19:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Consensus Isn't new information basically the definition of "No Consensus"? I admit that I'm not sure of the terminology here. If I had new information to bring in after the AfD was closed, that would be one thing, but the fact of the matter here is that there is obviously some discussion about how notable these sources are. I thought that that was what consensus was all about. I make a change, and there's some discussion about it. While that discussion is occuring, consensus has not been reached. I definitely agree that these articles are borderline cases, and that's why there should be some serious discussion on the matter.
  2. AfD Policy that does seem like a decent idea. How do you think it could be changed?
  3. Trivial I do admit that the triviality of these sources are somewhat in question. As far as I'm concerned it should really be the only debate here. What would I consider trivial? Well, WP gives an example of trivial: a one sentance mentioning in a several hundred page biography seems trivial. When a post is about several different things in the game industry going on. Or When Gamasutra recounts the several different things mentioned in a press conference, I would assume that each point is non-trivial, (if they get a direct mentioning). I would assume that the official announcement in Japan last year would have several japanese news sources reporting. Alas, I can't find them because I don't speak Japanese. (Hmm, gamasutra thanked "game-science" for the translation of Japanese news sources. How can I get that information?)
  4. Blog WP:RS There are several criteria that make a source reliable. Many blogs do not fit this critera, and all message postings to blogs do not meet this criteria (This is stated in WP:RS. I believe it is possible for some blogs to be notable and reliable (like Joel on Software But I feel that it's very clear that this IGN blog *is* notable. It's not just some blog made at blogger.com. It's the blogger of an employee who is getting paid to write articles about video games from a reputable publication. What he writes in his blog *is* news. Let's go through the RS criteria for non-scholarly sources one at a time:
    1. Attributability We know quite a bit about him. [2] He's the editor-in-chief of IGN cube!
    2. Expertise He's the editor-in-chief of IGN cube
    3. Bias He's the editor-in-chief of IGN Cube. He's being paid to
    4. Editorial oversight "editor-in-chief" probably has some editorial oversight?
    5. Replicability if anyone thinks that he's making leaps of faith from Nintendo's information, please pring forth some evidence.
    6. Declaration of sources He's pretty open about where he gets information. As a the editor in chief of a reputable news source, his sources are virtually the same as the rest of the news source?
    7. Confidentiality No confidential sources
    8. Corroboration Has anyone ever said "No, I'm sorry, Health Pack isn't coming out"
    9. Recognition by other reliable sources Gameworld Network, T3, and cubed3 are notable enough to be included in Google news, is that enough? should I find more? Oh, and that's just a few of the people referencing this particular blog post. Should I check the thousands of others who link to his posts? What about the millions(?) that reference either ign cube (of which he is the editor-in-chief), or ign itself?
    10. Age of the source and rate of change of the subject Information is new.
    11. Persistence Permalinks are available.
So now does anyone have any real reason to believe that his blog posts are not a reliable source? McKay 15:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New information isn't the definition of no consensus. As to trying to get afd to change so people can trickle bits of new information in to keep the process open indefinitely, you can try but I wouldn't be hopeful (and yes there are some areas people would try). Notability of the blog isn't important, so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up, being notable and being a reliable source are not directly linked.
As to your assessment of the blog as reliable: The criteria you list have to be taken in context of the information you are presenting, clearly some items which are merely factual representation (I've been told X) aren't subject to questions about derivation or being able to follow through the logical thought.
Corroboration so you reckon stuff which hasn't been denied anywhere else is implicitly corroborated?
Declaration of sources this isn't about making assumptions that because he gets information from certain sources it makes everything he says reliable. Does he state the source of the information being referred to here?
Editorial oversight you seem to skip over.
As WP:RS says of such items "Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."
Regardless is you can make a case for it being reliable you still have to overcome the non-trivial and multiple independent. --pgk 20:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe I'm misreading it, but WP:CONSENSUS basically says that new information *means* that there isn't consensus. '"Silence equals consent"'. If I say something contrary to what's been provided. That's a lack of silence, and therefore a lack of consensus. "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus." I have a disagreement as to how the policy is applied. Polite discussion is how consensus is reached.
Yes, I agree that we should exercise caution with blog posts. It doesn't mean the source shouldn't be used, it means we should check for corroboration.... With regards to corroboration, I've showed on countless occasions that Nintendo, Gamasutra, cubed3, t3, next-gen, gameworld network, nintendojo, and others all corroborate with him. I *thought* that that was understood. In order to show lack of corroboration we'd have to have information which contradicts what he's presented, which is why I presented what I did. I never said that just because one person has said something means that it's corroborated. If I implied that, I apologize. Oh, and I have on numerous occasions discussed why I believe that the sources represent "multiple, non-trivial, independent" sources. The "Multiple", and "Independent" clauses *should* by this time be undeniable. If you need me to say it *again* though. I will. The purpose of this DLR is to determine whether their is enough information to bring back the AfD. I believe that the articles (at least some of them) are non-trivial. Furthermore, I petition for the AfD to be reinstated so that the AfD can decide whether that is the case or not. McKay 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding in this matter those others have referenced this blog, that isn't corroboration. They may well have corroborated other things he has written and indeed may do for this at some point in the future, but you cannot assume that corroboration of past things he's written makes his writing on this intrinsically reliable. --pgk 21:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point, but that doesn't mean that his work isn't corroborated by others either. So, His most recent post (probably unbiased) has several points of corroboration: Google(Nyko Wireless Wii Sensor Bar). I could do this with each of his other articles, but I don't particularly want to. McKay 21:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Process was followed. `'mikka 18:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be less Terse? Care to tell me where I made my mistake? What about my "new information"? I've got evidence to the contrary. Can you refute it? McKay 04:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
  • The Game (game) – Speedy closed, multiple previous DRVs no new information presented just an anecdotal tale of how popular it is – pgk 12:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Game (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

It's a real game. I know many people who play it, it is growing in popularity all the time, and it deserves an article. I tried to visit this page because I thought it was a reliable source of information (specifically, I was looking for details on the Game's rules). Imagine my surprise to find that it was deleted, and on top of that, protected from undeletion. I am an infrequent participant in the internal goings-on of Wikipedia - if this is not the proper way to undelete an article, I would appreciate if someone told me what is. The Game is not a small, isolated phenomenon. I personally know people from across the United States - Connecticut, California, New York - who all knew about it independently. I do not understand how such a strong consensus against this article came to be, but I now ask the Wikipedia community to reconsider their decision. Kevin S. 10:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC) P.S. The Game I am referring to is the one that you play by trying to forget that it exists, and lose by remembering it. If this article was about a different game, disregard my post.[reply]

  • "The Game" has no coverage in multiple reliable sources, and thus violates WP's verifiability policy and notability guideline. It was deleted for that reason, and the deletion was endorsed here at DRV soon after. Without new evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, published sources, any future requests to revive this will be speedy closed. WarpstarRider 10:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can remember back when the article existed, and yes it was about that game which you are refering to. You are right in that it is extremely widespread. For instance my girlfriend from britain (I'm living in the opposite side of the world, in NZ) accidently lost last week by sheer chance because I was talking to her about something quite unrelated which caused her to remember. Of course then she had to insist on repeatedly telling me that she had lost.... which caused me to lose too. Darn. Anyway.... none of this is a good enough to have the article. We need several sources for it. Currently we don't know of any. You are welcome to go and look for them, I kind of suspect the must exist "somewhere" simply because of how famous it is. But without knowledge of them, we shall have to assume they don't exist and not allow the article to be recreated. Sorry. Mathmo Talk 11:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and for making me lose I'm going to invoke WP:IAR so that I can ignore WP:NPA because you made me loose.... &#@$*#$ #$&(~ #$&* `#$# $#^%#$ (%*!!!! Cheerio, have a nice day! Mathmo Talk
      • I've just noticed it was nominated for deletion a lot (about half a dozen times or so). Some of those were a keep, if you really want to get this page back you might like to look into why those times it was kept (also check out the AfD's when it was deleted). Maybe it could get back, if you get stuch at any points feel free to ask me for help (and any of the many other helpful wikipedians here). Mathmo Talk 11:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The previous "Keep"s were due to a lot of "I've heard of it" arguments and (later) one small column in a non-English newspaper. Back then, there wasn't as much emphasis placed on getting multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources to support the article as there is now. It's the same reason it took so long for articles like GNAA (18 AfDs) and LUEshi (7 AfDs) to finally be deleted. WarpstarRider 11:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there were a lot of other issues which caused GNAA to be deleted, but yeah.... I did get the general gist of it when I skimmed through The Game's AfDs. I'll note that I am not currently supporting that it gets undeleted. I'm just not ruling out the possibility that perhaps one day I an article could be made. Though of course we shall first have to wait and see several sources here first. Mathmo Talk 11:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vesica_Piscis_(band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

valid_current_artist 71.223.0.53 02:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy overturn, contested prod. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturned (I'm the deleting admin.) Contested PROD. (It's back) - TexasAndroid 05:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_13&oldid=1138429701"