Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd 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 delete. J04n(talk page) 17:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionite Jewish Community[edit]

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

This article was recently recreated for the third time. There seems to be only one independent reliable source which specifically relates to this topic which would not qualify as a trivial source. On that basis I believe that it qualifies for deletion yet again. John Carter (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP The article was NOT recreated; it was demerged, since the merged content was deleted from the Ebionite article, against the merge consensus of the 2nd AfD. Since the content seems unstable within the Ebionite article it was moved out as per the consensus there (no one objected to proposed demerger, including the AfD nominator, who is demonstrating bad faith with the lack of engagement prior to nomination). Since the contents have survived 2 AfDs, and has grown in sourcing since then, this 3rd AfD is doubly ridiculous. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the intention in demerging is to create a sub-article about modern Ebionites in general - as opposed to the ancient Ebionites - not the EJC in particular. This article is due to be renamed - I was waiting for feedback before renaming when the AfD was raised. The AfD nominator seems not be aware of this, despite the mention on the talk page [1]. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the article were to be renamed, then the content, would, presumably, be adjusted as well. In effect, it would be an entirely separate article than this one. Saying that this article has to be kept because it is to be renamed and the subject material adjusted does not strike me as a particularly reasonable argument. FWIW, having reviewed all the relevant material I could find myself, I have no particular reason to believe that an article about all the modern movements which claim to be "Ebionite" would meet notability guidelines either, as I have found no independent reliable sources which specifically mention any others, or discuss modern Ebionites in general in a substantive way. Some may have been created since I last looked, of course, but I hadn't seen sufficient evidence as of a few months ago anyway. And, regarding the allegations raised above, please consider this nomination for deletion, based on the failure of the content to meet notability guidelines, as my response. I had not myself noted the discussion on the article talk page earlier, and, honestly, given that the article is in mediation and awaiting arbitration because of certain editors' apparent violations of WP:IDHT and other policies and guidelines, I'm not sure any comments I may have made would have been given any attention anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, IOW, you decided to violate assume good faith and not engage in dialogue. That speaks volumes. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 22:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What truly speaks volumes is the ongoing effort of the above editor to impugn and otherwise possibly harass me, on this page and others, while refusing to discuss any matters of substance. That is one of the reasons the request for arbitration has been made and accepted by ArbCom. I have every reason to believe that the ongoing nature of these completely irrelevant ad hominem attacks, and other refusals to acknowledge or abide by policies and guidelines, speaks even more volumes. It seems that I must ask the above editor once again to actually try to make his comments even remotely relevant to the subject at hand, and cease from the regular disparagement of others which he seems to indulge in whenever he cannot find any policies or guidelines to support his opinion. John Carter (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not seeing anything that contradicts my statement, that you decided to violate assume good faith and not engage in dialogue over the matter of demerging. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 15:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Your lack of visual acuity is noted. I have, by the way, seen nothing which even remotely indicates that this point is relevant to this discussion. Nor did I see anything in the ongoing mediation page mentioning the article creation, which I think would have been reasonable as well. As I have stated elsewhere, I have a watchlist of about 4 or 5 thousand pages, and I guess I assumed any attempt of recreating a page on the group, when that content was being discussed in mediation, would have been at least mentioned there, particularly if the action was undertaken by one of the parties of mediation, which includes you, me, and Ovadyah, and the only independent RS on the subject which has been produced was actively being discussed in the mediation. Considering there is discussion on that page of changing the content of the section, it seems to me that it would have been reasonable to at least mention that the content was being moved elsehwere, no? John Carter (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is highly relevant to the present discussion to point out that there are two reliable sources supporting this content. James Tabor being the second reliable source. You pointed this out yourself in the last AfD here and it has been recently reaffirmed in the present mediation here. Ovadyah (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~SPEEDY KEEP~~ NO ACTION and against merging - The article has at least one source that mentions the group specifically which has an ISBN number. Therefore, the group exists based on WP:V. The issue in the second AfD was if the group is sufficiently notable under WP:N, which is a guideline, to merit its own article. Ovadyah (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Existence (even confirmed by an ISBN book) does not equal to notability. Do you know that there are millions of small businesses listed in various travel guides, industry catalogs, etc? 90% of them exist only in these books. As for our case, we don't know how the author got info about EJS. If he just picked by chance from their wedsite (after commendably diligent web search), without any research, we have no proof from the book that this "Jewish Community" is more than one person. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two other books which mention, if only mention, the subject. One of them is a book of quotations, including a quotation from Philips and a statement that he founded the EJC in 1985. Another is an encyclopedia of new religious movements which mentions nothing but the name in a list of NRMs. Unfortunately, neither of them provides more than a single sentence on the EJC or Philipps, and may well be subject to the same questions about where the information came from as the book included. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I voted for a Speedy Keep because of the improper way this was done. When we were discussing options on the talk page of the parent article, a vote to delete was not even brought up as an option. If it had been, I doubt that there would have been a consensus decision to de-merge. Ovadyah (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is every evidence that you monitored the talk page of the editor who created the article, per your rapid response. He was so far as I can tell the only editor at the time who had been actively involved in the article itself, so he was the only one I was required to notify. I believe, if anything, the unsupported claim of impropriety above is much more clearly demonstrated in that editor's comments, and lack of even basic understanding of the XfD process, per his own comments here. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Editors do not need the blessing of others to take actions they believe improve the encyclopedia. Weak or invalid speedy keep arguments are damaging to the credibility of those making them; speedy keep is a documented procedure reliant on particular criteris which weren't met here, and not simply another way of saying "I really want this kept". The nomination was not obviously in bad faith (as the edit summary accompanying this argument implies), which is a serious allegation against editors in good standing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to explain this one more time and then I'm moving on. I was previously opposed to a de-merge shown here. John Carter supported a de-merge shown here. While any editor can change their mind, it would have been nice to know that when we were trying to reach a consensus this week shown here. Anyway, what's done is done. Let's reach a consensus and move on. Ovadyah (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have established both that there had been an attempt to discuss this week, and, at the same time, established by yuor own comments on this page that you as an individual apparently have little understanding of the XFD process. Also, it is worth noting once again that there was no such discussion on the active mediation page. I believe it would have been appropriate to make at least some such comment on the mediation page, but no one seems to have thought of that. Odd. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BB is not the slightest excuse to ignore WP:CONSENSUS since it relies entirely on there not being an existing discussion. Moreover, the nom was absent from the discussion, which adds to that negligence; see below.

Merge into Ebionites Per the consensus of the last AFD, which the article's creator supported. If someone is deleting merged information, that is an issue for the talk page, not a criteria for a new article. I take Michael C Price 100% at his word, which makes this new article a NPOV fork. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE or alternatively MERGE into a small footnote on Assemblies of Yahweh, or find some more appropriate article than Ebionites, or better just delete totally. As far as I can see this isn't a church/group and doesn't "exist" other than as an "online community", which, other than Facebook which is a company, means it doesn't "exist". The one source only says "Ebionite Jewish Community, Shemayah Philips" which is just 1 person, a person who doesn't have a book on Amazon, and isn't mentioned anywhere and isn't notable. There is this source, The Concise Guide to Today's Religions and Spirituality by James K. Walker, but it seems to be a trawl of websites and 1-man religions. Does every individual in this book warrant a Wikipedia mention, let alone an article? Nope, imho. (Sorry) In ictu oculi (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC) -- as a second note to that, I just looked again at Assemblies of Yahweh and even though they are only 3000 strong it seems a Related Groups paragraph at the bottom would cover this content and could probably cover 1 or 2 similar subjects/groups.[reply]

Comment - This comment is made only to say that the Walker source is an outstanding one, but it does seem to meet minimal standards for an RS. It may not be a great one, but it does seem to meet the minimum RS standards. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to commment - Hi John. The Walker book is certainly comprehensive, but it does seem that most of the smaller cyberchurches mentioned are not notable by Wikipedia standards. The Sacred Name article already lists 2 or 3 virtual groups of similar marginal notability, few if any adherents, no publications etc.; I don't see why Shemayah Phillips and his webpage can't go there? I also can't see anything in the Walker article which would justify the content being in an article about 4thC Judaistic Christians. Incidentally - a procedural matter, in a AfD wouldn't it be right to notify the original page poster User:Loremaster from 2006? [I forgot to sign] In ictu oculi (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, given the two previous AfDs on the subject, and the fact that, at least potentially, the possibility of other sources having been introduced, it had not struck me as necessarily required, particularly given that you had indicated to me earlier a lack of ongoing interest in the subject. I had myself added the material to the Sacred Name movement article earlier, and have said before that it may well be much better placed there than in the Ebionites article. And I myself count the Walker book as only one RS, when notability generally requires at least two. So, while it is an RS, it is still insufficient to establish individual notability. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to reply In ictu oculi, the main problem with your suggestion is that the EJC does not self-identify as Christian. In fact, they have some kind of pre-screening process where you have to prove you are not a Christian to even get on their list shown here. Of course, this is me doing a bit of web search and not a RS saying it. But the fact remains that lumping them in with some Christian groups that have taken on Jewish practices would be incongruous. Ovadyah (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-identification is not necessarily a binding requirement. I do however have to acknowledge Ovadyah as the expert we have on the EJC, based on his declared interest in the topic from his very first edit to his userpage. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this was intended as a complement. However, I did at least make an effort to contact Phillips directly to verify that what the encyclopedia was saying about him and the EJC was accurate (it wasn't true). The fictitious crap about Phillips being a former Baptist minister that was planted on this encyclopedia in 2005 continues to circulate all over the internet to this day. Ovadyah (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you seem to be indicating, for whatever reason, that self-published sources sem to take priority over independent sources. In fact, if you were to review policies and guidelines, it is very clear that the opposite is true here. If Philipps had any real intention of addressing this matter, he could certainly have contacted one of the newspapers in his area to indicate as much. I have consulted databanka from ProQuest, JSTOR, EBSCOHost, and Gale Cengage Infotrac, and have yet to find any reliable sources in any independent publications, other than the three sources already indicated, which even mention him. He has apparently made no effort to publicly repudiate that information, and we are not bound to bend over backwards to ask others about themselves. Also, as has already been noted, there is now the intention to actively ask professional journals to discuss neo-Ebionites. Should that request be honored, I have every reason to believe he will be able to answer then. However, none of that is relevant to the fact that this article still does not apparently meet notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not worship Jesus" is the sign of a Christian group, not a Jewish one, but I don't see how that is relevant to WP:Notability "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works."In ictu oculi (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worship is the key word there. It has nothing to do with notability. However, assuming that even a brief mention of this group survives, what we say should at least be reported accurately. I have also made the case that there are in fact two reliable sources backing up this content, the other being James Tabor, which we reaffirmed as per consensus in mediation. Of course we can play the same WP:GAME here that is being played on the main article - that no number of RS will ever be enough. Ovadyah (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called consensus in the mediation, so far as I recall, was only a consensus between Michael and Ovadyah, and I cannot remember anything in that mediation which related specificlly to this topic at all. And the above comment has nothing to do with the main subject here, notability, either. And it is not our place to engage in WP:OR and make an assumption that one source which seems to meet WP:RS should be completely ignored, WP:GAME, and I think more importantly, WP:IDHT, are among the reasons the ArbCom has taken this topic for arbitration, pending the completion of the mediation. But, again, for all the comment above, I have to say that the minimum notability guidlines have apparently not been met. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This topic is notable and well referenced. I agree with Michael C. Price above. It is certainly not a POV fork. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, directory mention in one book is not significant coverage. The other references do not address the notability of this web community.--96.23.34.3 (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good then, that point is resolved. John Carter and Ovadyah should probably stop talking to each other here right about now.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I believe the relevant guideline is WP:GNG, which pretty clearly asks for multiple independent reliable sources which mention the subject in some detail. So far as I have seen, there is only one such independent reliable source which discusses the subject in a non-trivial way. Therefore, I believe that it does qualify for deletion as non-notable. I wish that were not the case, and am hoping that the request of some journal to write an article or more to establish notability, which is currently developing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, helps to establish the required notability, but, at, present, I cannot see that the subject meets notability requirements. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is inappropriate for the nominator to leave comments all over the nomination page attempting to steer other editors into taking an action desired by the nominator. If you don't stop doing this, I will take the matter to ANI. Ovadyah (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe I was providing clarification of the first point, and responding to the baseless accusations of others. I have no intention of responding further, only noting that the above comment itself is both very judgemental, seems to ignore the relevant points raised, and would possibly be just as much subject to ANI review as my own, more substantial, comments above. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You had an opportunity to make your points in your opening statement. Further "clarifications" should not be necessary. If these "clarifications" continue, I will ask the admins to remove all the comments. Let's have a clean vote. Ovadyah (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that these are not technically "votes", but rather discussions based on policies and guidelines, right? And, if there are no further attempts at impugning my own motivations, such as both of the comments directly above, there I would have no reason to make further comments. And there is sufficient precedent for an individual to make comments after first proposing, particularly when he, regretfully, did not actually cite the exact policy and guideline involved. However, if the above editor is capable of refraining from demanding others do exactly as he orders, there should be no reason for any further comment from any of us, so long as further attempts to impugn the comments of others on any matter other than the relevant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did think they were "votes", so pardon my ignorance. ANI says you are free to make all the comments you like, and therefore, I will likewise feel free to make all the comments I like in rebuttal. Ovadyah (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think he is saying that you might be bludgeoning the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the point exactly. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I closed that conversation. Let's move on please. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability presented beyond brief listing in one book. No evidence there is more than one person in this community. I am also against merging, for the same reason: undue weight for a virtually unknown organization (if organization at all). Lothar Klaic (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence provided that this is a notable group. I can't find any significant coverage of them in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as against merging as I cant see the justification. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Que?

I think a sensible reading of the previous AfD would be that while many editors suggested merging, nobody explained exactly why the material in the article at that time belonged in the parent. What it certainly did suggest was that a "de-merge" (undoing the redirect) was inappropriate as there simply isn't enough reliable independent coverage of the subject of this article to warrant it standing by itself. I agree with John Carter's initial comment above that arguing for a keep because we could theoretically have an article on a subject somewhat similar to this doesn't hold a lot of water. In ictu oculi's proposed alternative redirect target might also be something to consider. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The oxymoronic POVFORK (material that is POV is not a fork, unless the original was POV) shows one side of a dispute, but not the other; commonly, material is railroaded out of an article with deletors saying, this belongs in the X article (often despite the fact that X article does not exist) When the article is created, deletors use POVFORK to delete it. That is not exactly what has happened here, but there is evidence of a lot of back-and-forth, even editors changing their minds about it. The article was created in 2006. The nomination to delete in 2006 says, "After an extensive discussion, the content was removed from the "Ebionite" article for lack of notability, and was transferred to its own page, with the understanding that after a period of time, an AFD nomination would be made to see if the content merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. After about a month, I still tend to think it lacks sufficiently notable" The current nominator, who voted merge/keep at the 2009 AFD, subsequently re-added material to Ebionites, and then decided it should only be a redirect to Sacred Name Movement (nothwithstanding the fact that the Sacred Name Movement is a Christian movement with Jewish beliefs), as can be seen in talk Archive 10: section Neo-Ebionites ...Actually, as the person who first added this material..." Nominator has not written a single word at the talk page of Ebionites since 20 Oct 2010, but is next to unstoppable today.

The reason for the nominator not making any subsequent edits is rather well known to the regular editors of the main Ebionites article. The nominator produced a number of reliable sources on the subject which can be found at User talk:John Carter/Ebionites and the accompanying page, and the material was questioned as faulty and possibly fraudulent. As can be seen in the Ebionites talk page archives, the nominator recused himself from any further editing of the article at that point, and even indicated that he would voluntarily, on his own, withdraw his adminship if any of the material he produced were found to be inaccurate. No one has raised such allegations, and the individual is still an admin, although for about a year now virtually all the material he produced regarding this subject has been ignored by the others who had not so recused themselves. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and:I think it is arguable that there is a consensus to keep this material somewhere. I think that my example, and the history of this article and countless other articles and AFDs, show that the responsible thing is for a definite conclusion about the fate of material to be reached whenever there is a chance to do so; assuming that someone else is going to do it later is passing the buck. It's all very well to be clever and assert that it does not belong here and does not belong there, but it is not, in the end, helpful when the material obviously belongs somewhere. Anarchangel (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my recommendation to Merge into Ebionites earlier. There are claims that it was demerged, but that isn't a reason to fork the info, that is a reason to enter conflict resolution. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone willing to do the reading, the entire thread of the discussion, since the last AfD resulted in a consensus to merge, is here, here, here, and here. Ovadyah (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone willing to discuss common sense, it may be useful to remember that the consensus may change. It may happen that there is a new article, borderline notable subject, people may decide to wait a bit and see what happens. If over time there is no additional confirmation of notability (i.e., more confirmation of nonnotability), then the topic may be deleted from anywhere in wikipedia articles, based on new consensus, which is based on new considerations regardless last-year debates. Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, I think I should more clearly indicate my own specific preferred outcome, which I have not yet done, and my apologies for that. I would favor restoring this page to a redirect, and restoring the content removed from the Ebionites page back to that article. There has been recent discussion of other groups which have been influenced by the historic Ebionites, such as the Elkeasites, Cathars, and others who have had what might be called a "low" Christology, and a sentence or two on this topic (the specific group or the groups in general) in a section on "Ebionite influence or legacy" doesn't strike me as entirely inappropriate. If and when additional independent reliable sources which make significant mention of the topic are produced, then there would be no objections I can see to creating some sort of separate article on this group or neo-Ebionites as a whole. But, at present, I don't see the multiple significant discussions of the subject in independent reliable sources which would merit a separate article on either the specific group or the broader topic of modern Ebionites as a whole. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there is to be a merge, I believe the more reasonable MERGE "target" would be the Sacred Name Movement. The only independent reliable source of any substance mentions that group first, before the Ebionites. While it presents both statements passively, it does apparently consider the SNM more directly relevant to this group than the Ebionites. Also, there is the fact that the SNM is more closely related in terms of time, and that, on that basis, it is likely that the SNM article, when developed, would probably contain more information directly relevant to this group, particularly in areas like its history, than the Ebionites article is likely to. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No information is preferable to wrong information. Therefore, if the choice is between a merge to the Sacred Name Movement and deletion, I will change my vote to DELETE. Deletion is also preferable to a merge to Assemblies of Yahweh for the same reason. That is just a subset of the SNM. Ovadyah (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ovadyah, no problem with your edit. But it does appear to be the specific offshoot of the Sacred Name Movement from which the only source (Walker's web-searchbased book) says Shemayah Phillips came from. Frankly I'm easy, certainly this individual has more to do with the 20th Century Sacred Name Movement/Assemblies of Yahweh than with any 3rd Century group. But the main criteria remains notability, since Walker's book is not 3 sources, and maybe doesn't qualify as 1 source since its a listing of websites, but in any case Shemayah Phillips fails to meet Wikipedia notability criteria.In ictu oculi (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fact that Shemayah Phillips was once briefly a member of the Assemblies of Yahweh (if that is even true) is not noteworthy. This is not a biography about Shemayah Phillips. And to imply that, therefore, there must be some kind of linkage between the Assemblies of Yahweh and the EJC is like saying there must be some kind of linkage between being a Christian and being a Jew. The whole point is that he renounced Christianity and converted to Judaism; it's just not Rabbinic Judaism. You don't understand how militant these groups are. I think if you read 1 Maccabees 2:1-28 you will get the point. Ovadyah (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow, since 1 Maccabees is about Jews, but this website's owner is not a Jew (Jews don't recognise Jesus as a prophet). In any case whatever the website's owner is, if he's not notable for a mention on Sacred Name Movement then he isn't notable enough for mention in Ebionites to which there's no demonstrable connection. Out of interest see a similar discussion going on about Talk:Michele Moramarco where the Italian author (and would be starter of various masonic/religious communities) is 20x more notable than than the owner of the EJC website being proposed for a mention here.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a sweeping statement Jews don't recognise Jesus as a prophet is accurate in the context of Ebionites, neo or otherwise. I doubt whether Phillips would agree with you. :-) -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 16:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment Before we close off this debate, I want to make it clear that the real issue here is editorial misconduct. It should be abundantly clear by now that John Carter has an axe to grind that is so heavy he can barely lift it. The nomination itself is willful misconduct that will be dealt with in arbitration. The content issue we are here to work on can't be solved by merging. That will just take a never-ending dispute somewhere else. Maybe the best course of action for now is to do nothing until the larger user conduct issue is resolved. Therefore, I'm going to recommend that NO ACTION be taken pending the outcome of arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is a prodound issue of editorial misconduct here. Such misconduct is the reason that a request for arbitration on the topic of the Ebionites has ionce again been accepted, presumably on the basis of my claim that Ovadyah and Michael C Price have ignored and otherwise actively sought to prevent that article from being, primarily, simply a POV-pushing supporter of the theories of Jamse Tabor and Robert Eisenman, neither of which has received substantive academic support. I also note how several of Ovadyah's comments here have little if anything to do with any matters of substance, but continue his now habitual ad hominem attacks. I can see no reason whatsoever for the resolution of this matter to not be finished as scheduled, despite Ovadyah's attempt at misdirection above. The notability guidelines are clear, and the fact that noone has produced the number of independent reliable sources which are required for this article to exist as a separate article is sufficient to delete it, or turn it into a redirect. Ovadyah's repeating his completely off-topic personal attacks and putting them forward as a reason for not acting should hold no more weight than his earlier comments indicating that he thought this is a "vote". I very strongly urge that editor to, if he can, deal with issues of substance rather than continuing his drumbeat of personal attacks as a form of misdirection. John Carter (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a fact we are headed to arbitration, and it is also a fact that I intend to bring up your actions here as one in a long list of examples of editorial misconduct. There is nothing ad hominem about it. Once our content-related issues are resolved, you are going to face up to your behavior. And please remember that you took yourself there. Ovadyah (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently have no understanding of what ad hominem even means. Once again, in your above comment, you completely and utterly refuse to discuss anything directly relevant to the overall discussion and insist on attacking others. That is the very definition of ad hominem, which means, basically, attacking the person, rather than the ideas. Nothing in the little diatribe above even remotely addresses the subject of whether the article qualifies for deletion, and, on that basis, I believe that my own comments, discussing the relevant policies and guidelines, should still be considered. In all honesty, your own comment above is a perfect example of your own failure to even remotely address matters of substance, and instead continue to impugn others while at the same time completely ignoring the subject at hand. I can think of no better example of your own extended misconduct in this matter than the little pure personal attack above. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next? Guys, there have been no new votes since the second day.In ictu oculi (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please read WP:AFD, AFDs last for 7 days or longer generally. This gives anyone wanting to participate the opportunity to do so. Forgot to add, this isn't a "vote", and the number of keep vs. delete is meaningless. It is a discussion. See WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dennis, that's the theory, but it is a rule more honoured in the breach than the observance. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 17:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, couldn't find any significant coverage of them in third party reliable sources. Dragquennom (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many religious sects claiming to cleave to one or another ancient tradition. This one has no substantial coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 21:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of secondary reliable sources that discuss Ebionite Jewish Community in a nontrivial manner. My searches for sources on Google, Google News, and Google Books have failed to uncover sources that could be used to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 22 April 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.