Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jewish organizations (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Courcelles 23:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Messianic Jewish organizations

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

For over 3 1/2 years this article has been tagged as a list that is poorly defined, unverified or indiscriminate. No standards are provided to determine whether an organization should or should not be included in this list. The list is entirely unsourced. Wikipedia is a not a directory, a Google search might produce the same list that this article has. The list does not seem to provide any encyclopedic value, the text in the list itself seems to be directly lifted from each organization's own promotional copy in its web sites. Zad68 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the nominator for this AfD. A category would easily serve the same purpose of this list, and would actually be better because the category's item articles would be better sourced, undergo better scrutiny and not duplicate the information this list might hold. I have hopefully saved the category Messianic organizations from deletion and I have tagged the 3 organizations in this list that have Wikipedia articles with the category. -- Zad68 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The inclusion criteria is rather clear, and the descriptions of the organizations make it rather obvious why each has been included. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, categories and lists are intended to support each other, and there is no reason that both should not exist; Nothing would be duplicated, the information would be accessible through different means of access. While a category would merely include the titles of the included articles, this list can offer descriptions and details that are impossible to include in a category, and I'm unsure how "the category's item articles would be better sourced" because categories can never include sources while they can readily be added to a list. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no argument on notability has been raised--which is good, since I'm sure most would agree that Messianic Judaism is notable--but the objections that HAVE been raised do not require deletion to remedy them. Per WP:ATD, if the article is broken, fix it. Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The earlier nomination for deletion of this page was on 3 September 2007, and the result of the discussion was keep. The list exists to support the Messianic Judaism article while preserving the encyclopedic character of the main article. Note this article was recently vandalized with an unauthorized miscategorization and subsequently restored.--DeknMike (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains embedded lists that are poorly defined, unverified and indiscriminate (tagged since January 2008) and relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and reliable third-party publications (tagged since October 2007).

— Pakkaf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Simply not notable nor encyclopedic, just a random list. --Cox wasan (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of how this article might meet notability guidelines.--On the counter (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or purge all non-notable entries I also question why all entries are US based, which seems odd (but then I know little of the topic). Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concern was noted. Have included organizations organized and/or operating outside USA--DeknMike (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legitimate content fork of Messianic Judaism. Most of these are mini-denominations and probably notable - collectively, the list is certainly valuable. As far as notability goes, the thing to look for is whether there is independent non-trivial coverage of messianic organizations in general, which there certainly is. StAnselm (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Challenge I agree: "the thing to look for is whether there is independent non-trivial coverage of messianic organizations" but the coverage needs to be for each organization proposed to occupy space in this Wikipedia article otherwise it fails WP:NOTABLE. I challenge the assertion that this coverage you describe exists, would you please take 3 or so of the (non-wikilinked) organizations recently added and show where we can see independent non-trivial coverage about each? Thanks... Zad68 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've totally misunderstood WP:NOTABLE - it clearly says "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article" and that "these notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." St Anselm (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Concerned about the treatment of articles who are about Jews or Jewish groups tied with Christianity. Like in the article recently deleted (Michael L. Brown) and this, (Zola Levitt), we are having a few Single-purpose account accounts springing up submitting them for deletion or voting to delete. See here. The in these 3 deletes I mentioned all seem to have one or two account that are rather new to always stack things to "delete." Basileias (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to tag SPAs as per Wikipedia:SPA#SPA_tagging. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category and a main article exist so there is no need for a list as well.--TiberiasTiberias (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many new entries to the list have been added since this this !vote started. I'm concerned that almost all of them currently lack independent third party sources (or articles containing said sources). I'm not really familiar with the topic but a quick google isn't finding sources for them either (Is it likely that there are sources in Hebrew for them?). Given that this appears to be a disputed area, independent third party sources would seem to be required. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, the entries recently added to the list all fail WP:NOTABLE, and they all look like they fail WP:NOTADVERTISING. (As Messianic Judaism is a recent USA-based movement, we would expect references to be in English and not Hebrew... this is for English Wikipedia anyway.) Actually all these recently-added entries just strengthen the case for deleting this article under WP:NOTADIRECTORY as well. None (except one) of these entries has real WP:RS references, they are simply links to each group's own self-promotional web site with each organization's promotional ad copy copied here. No encyclopedic value is added beyond what category tags provide, which I have already taken care of. Zad68 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further Comment ...and as somebody already pointed out, the main article Messianic Judaism already contains a list: Messianic_Judaism#Messianic_organizations If the non-notable entries are taken out of the list there, the list is certainly small enough to keep the list maintained there instead of having a separate article (with no added encyclopedic value) to maintain as well. Zad68 (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your POV may be that this is a recent phenomena (I've heard the same lame - unverified - arguments before), but the movement has more validity than many other Wiki articles. (Isn't 'none' a bit strong? or have you deleted those links again?) We can double the length of the main page or keep mention of the key associations and link from the main page to this list. I vote we keep the page encyclopedic and link to the list.--DeknMike (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even after your edits, the article still exhibits all the attributes that make it a good candidate for deletion. I noted "None (except one) of these entries has real WP:RS references" and that is still true: Only the MJAA entry was notable enough to have a reference from a WP:RS (actually the link provided is broken, it brings up snippets of 11 different pages of a book, and none of the snippets mentions the MJAA). The number of WP:NOTABLE entries (notable enough to have Wikipedia articles) in this list is still 3. Those 3 entries already have the appropriate Messianic organizations category applied, and they are already listed in the main article Messianic Judaism. The rest are not notable... in fact, in the case of both "Atlantic Messianic Alliance of America" and "Messianic Jewish Theological Institute", the links provided jump to no web site at all. I didn't check all the others but those two random clicks led nowhere. Clearly, these are not notable, and no evidence of notability is provided via a reliable third-party reference. All the text under "Focus" is advertising copy cut and pasted from each organization's promotional web site. The focus of this list is being further blurred now that "Congregations", "Schools" and "Publishers" are all getting lumped in here. Please review Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's apparent that no encyclopedic value is added by this article, and the recent edits provide an increasingly strong case for deletion of this article because Wikipedia is not a directory. Just my observations. Zad68 (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.