Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabulon (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 KEEP: NO CONSENSUS. Although I did vote in this AfD, I hope my closing it won't be viewed as too far out of process, since the "conclusion" is quite clearly "no consensus", but the AfD was also withdrawn by the nominator... [1] ... if anyone regards this closure as inappropriate, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Tomer^talk 10:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jahbulon

I endorse this closure. Mangojuice^talk 07:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jahbulon was nominated for deletion on 2006-01-27. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahbulon.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jahbulon.

The article is about a little known word, supposedly used in a particularly small branch of Freemasonry as a password or recognition word. As such, it is not really encyclopedic (See WP:NOT). At one time, the article was longer... including a lot of speculation as to the word's origins and meaning. However, the version of the article with this speculation had serious issues with WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS. Most of the material has been cut. Without that material, it really is little more than a dictionary definition. Blueboar 18:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete - This is not even a dicdef, as there is no definition of this so-called word. MSJapan 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete - per arguement given by Blueboar. Chtirrell 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep - It's a source of controversy and been used in quite a few of the recent big anti-Masonic tracts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JASpencer (talk • contribs). - Sorry, forgot to sign. JASpencer 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How does that reconcile with Personally I think the Jahbulon stuff is bonkers, just as a matter of interest?ALR 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just because I think that the whole thing is bonkers (and worse, a red herring) does not mean that it is not notable. Whether I think it is bonkers is largely subjective. Whether it is notable is more objective. JASpencer 08:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and MSJapan. WegianWarrior 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. ALR 22:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. On the last AfD I stated that anything that raises so many hackles appears notable IMHO. I don't see what's changed. Ifnord 01:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Merge to Freemason conspiracy theories. wikipediatrix 01:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep This word refers to a relatively sophisticated and complex concept which is both notable and sourced; it's not a dicdef. IronDuke 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Note that most delete votes on this AfD are from users who identify as Freemasons (with the exception of wikipediatrix). While WPtrix makes a valid point (with which I neither agree nor disagree), I believe the votes of Freemason contributors on AfD, given the Masons' traditional veil of secrecy around their rituals, cannot be considered objective. No vote. Haikupoet 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - "Traditional veil of secrecy". my foot. Go to Amazon, or EBay, or do a search online. I think you'll find plenty of rituals. I certainly did - they're not really very secret at all. That's a misconception, and the simple fact is, if Freemason editors weren't here to make sure what was written in the Freemasonry-related articles was accurate, every article would be full of conspiracy theories and uniinformed statements, such as "Anti-Masonic ritual", which doesn't exist, and actually popped up in Jahbulon just recently, or "veil of secrecy" for that matter. MSJapan 10:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - well referenced, encyclopaedic article. I'm not sure there's more we can ask. WilyD 04:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - assuming that the concept is as absurd as the article's critics make it out to be, it remains an attested concept that did not originate here, and was circulated elsewhere. That much is satisfactorily documented. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Sigh, Keep... we've already been through this once. As Tlöniq says, "Jabulon" is out there, like it or not. While there may be no wikipedia editors who believe in "Jabulon" [except the nominator, perhaps? wow, watch the conspiracy theories spin!!!], the fact remains that millions of Christians in the US, at the very least, have been exposed to this concept...and that alone makes it notable. Tomer^talk 07:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, we have been through this before. However, the article is vastly different than it was at that time. I would go as far as to say that it is no longer the same article. A lot of material has been deleted due to the issues with WP:RS. As the article stands NOW, it is ripe for deletion. Blueboar 12:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As the article has changed since the AfD was entered and there is currently an argument going on about whether a report from the Baptist Union of Scotland can be included under WP:RS can this consultation be suspended until the article is stabilised? These are the differences and this [[2]] is the content dispute. JASpencer 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer's comment goes right to the heart of the matter... Almost all of the "controversy" surounding Jahbulon can and has been removed because it comes from unreliable sources and fails WP:V. Without that "controversy" there is nothing notable or encyclopedic about the existance of the word. This is why the time has come to re-nominate it for deletion. If those who wish to keep the article could locate reliable sources to back their claims, I would agree that it would be worth keeping. Since they can not, it should be deleted. Blueboar 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for being unclear but this is not what I said. Small but substantial changes have been made to the article giving it some context as to why it is notable. We are also in the middle of a discussion as to whether Church websites are reliable sources for hosting other church's documents and wheter WP:RS is being used to remove valid information. I believe that the AfD is inappropriate at the moment. It may be appropriate later when this becomes a stable article. JASpencer 19:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Basicly what you are saying is that we are destined to keep going in circles... someone will insert the "controversy" material with citing yet another unreliable source, someone else will delete that material per WP:RS, the article will then be renomimated for yet another AFD, and then someone will insert the "controversy" using a different unreliable source and say that the article isn't stable so should be given a third, fourth, fifth chance ... etc. etc. etc. I really don't think we should be waisting everyones time like that. Blueboar 20:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well no. The question is not whether the Jahbulon claims are true but whether they are notable.

There is reliable material saying that people believe that Jahbulon is a Masonic deity - Knight and deHoyos for two. They may be wrong (and I have been outed already on this page in my scepticism) but the concept is still there. This was made first time around:

The claim that Freemasons use the word "Jahbulon" or "Jabulon" as the name of a deity, and discussions about its possible etymology, seem to be attested outside of Wikipedia User:Ihcoyc

the fact that conspiracy buffs and antimasonists discuss the subject incessantly make it noteworthy, even if they're off the wall. I can see people coming to WP to verify the claims made by the conspiracy theorists and their ilk User:TShilo12 (I don't think that MSJ or you got to the heart of this objection in your replies).

Knight and Hannah have both had an effect - including in church reports. Many Christians believe that Jahbulon is either the name of a Masonic deity or else a very dubious theological construct (or in the Baptist's case both). For this reason it is notable. And for once I'd love to agree with you.

JASpencer 21:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there's no reliable evidence on the anti-Masonic side to say that it exists, and clear denial on the Masonic side. So where's the article in all this? MSJapan 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point though. It's the accusation that's notable. JASpencer 21:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that when I posted this AFD, there was no accusation mentioned in the article. The material about accusations had been deleted due to the lack of reliable sources to back the accusation up. In essence all the article consisted of was "Royal Arch Masons may use a word called Jahbulon and Rev. Tydeman thinks it means such and such". The article had been that way for over a month with no objections or edits. In fact, the only other editor who participated in discussion on the deletions agreed that, without the accusation, the article should be deleted. Without the accusation the word Jahbulon is not notable the article is not encyclopedic. I do find it strange that no-one seemed to care about this article until an AFD nomination was made.

That said, I agree that with the accusation material included the topic is notable... if only for the existance of the controversy surrounding it. IF someone can find reliable sources to back the accusation materials, I am willing to drop the AFD nomination. And I am willing to postpone it to give you time to try and find those reliable sources. Does one more month sound fair? Blueboar 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar's right, this is now a substantially different article from the one that was nominated. No one should criticise him for bringing in an unsuitable AfD.

BB, if you want to bring it back in a month then that's fine.

JASpencer 06:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

AFD Withdrawn... for now. (admin, please let us know when the withdrawal becomes official) Blueboar 14:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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.