Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Fruits of Zion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. While this discussion has created a lot of heat, it has created little light in form of tangible outside evidence of notablity. ~ trialsanderrors 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Fruits of Zion & Boaz Michael

del nonnotable supervanity. Verifiability problem. Notability: only 371 unique google hits, due to their internet self-propaganda. `'mikkanarxi 22:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Your amount of google hits is misleading. Typing in 'First Fruits of Zion" only into google and Yahoo turns up way more hits than that. Jamie Guinn 23:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete these self-promotional WP:Vanity stubs filled with misleading gobbledygook about "Judaism" and "Torah" when they are only a cheap recruiting piece to get ignorant people to convert to a small unheard of non-mainstream Christian cult. Pathetic. IZAK 00:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep These are notable authors of published books, and leaders in the Messianic Movement. If an author has multiple books, and FFOZ is a publishing house, I believe it more than well fits the definition for notability and inclusion in a public encyclopedia. Also other wikipedia articles link to them; and the FFOZ and Boaz articles are the developing result and consensus of Wikiproject: Messianic Judaism, Messianic Jewish editors, and the general editing community that has worked hard to develop and expand information about Messianic Judaism. There is no gobbledygook, and the articles do not violate any rules in WP:Vanity - on the contrary, they are also notable, published subjects that have a near-majority following in Messianic Judaism. You'd be hard pressed not to find a Messianic who hasn't heard of Tim Hegg, Boaz Michael, or First Fruits of Zion and the One-Law Movement that is within scope of Messianic Judaism. Perhaps before you guys jump into deleting articles, that you might actually bother to post specifics as to EXACTLy what is wrong with them per Wikipedia policies, and how they are NOT notable according to other (and lesser known) publishers and authors that actually DO have Wikipedia articles. It would help if you stayed away from vague generalizations. In the meantime, I ask the admins to end this nonsensical request quickly, and keep the articles. inigmatus 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Inigmatus: Yeah right, it's not gobbledygook, it's full of lies and deceptions, from the get go. Bald-faced ones too: Like these: "First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) is a Torah teaching ministry" now does that make any sense? What "Torah" are they teaching besides the Christian Gospels?, which are definitely not "Torah" (check out the term at the Torah article.) Would anyone believe a statement like "Yeshiva XYX teaches the New Testament"? there is no such creature on this planet because it is yeshivas that teach Torah while it is ministries that teach the Gospels, both being true statements, let's not get confused ok? Also these names "One Law movement" and "Grafted In movement" are complete neoligisms if ever there were any, and saying that non-Jews somehow become "Jews" by accepting Jesus is total hokum because no Christian worth their salt believes or says that. Now the claim that "FFOZ's motto is, "Proclaiming the Torah and it's way of life, fully centered on Messiah, to today's People of God" is truly comic because, again, what "Torah" are they proclaiming exactly? Wouldn't this be called false advertising if someone were to claim "Proclaiming this second hand car to be good as new" when in truth the thing has it's engine missing and won't even sputter when you turn on the ignition? This is really funny: "1. They believe themselves as righteous..." or "They follow all commmandments of Adonai" very humble of them don't you think, when was the last time you heard of any serious group, even the most respected, arrogantly calling themselves "righteous" and that they follow "all the commandments" ? hmmm, even the ones not to follow a false prophet? And there is more. It's a pathetic stub and one fears where such an article would go were it allowed to mushroom and grow out of all proportion to reality. Yeaa, let's all do a reality check whilst we're about it. IZAK 02:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • IZAK, I can applaud your zealousness against anything that smacks of Christianity; but I think you have issues of confusion in your understanding of Messianics, FFOZ, and Boaz. First, you are correct, no Christian would claim to be a Jew by faith alone in Yeshua. Second, we're not Christian - we don't celebrate Christian holidays, we don't eat Christian food, we don't even share the same worship day. Third, if you really want to know what Torah they are teaching, please feel free to pick up the latest edition of the Stone Chumash, or your nearest Tanakh. Fourth, FFOZ has theological reasons, I am sure, that allow them to claim to "follow all the commandments of Adonai." Fifth, I don't see what substance your comment adds to the discussion of this AfD. Perhaps you can be a little more specific and stay away from such generalizations such as "its full of lies and deceptions" or "there's no such creature on this plant" or "these names are just neologisms." Come on, if you're as much a wiki fan as I am, I would think you could be more constructive. I encourage you to keep sharing with the group the reasons why you feel these articles should be deleted, but if you don't offer anything more specific than generalizations as accusations, then please don't bother posting and let the wikiprocess continue to move this discussion to a speedykeep. Otherwise, please refrain from engaging here a discussion over semantics, as VfDs are not the best place to engage Messianics in debates over their faith. I'm sure you'll spare a lot of people grief by keeping this VfD on topic. inigmatus 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Hi Inigmatus: I very much resent that you are now stooping to accuse me of "zealousness against anything that smacks of Christianity" which in itself is a total lie! I have done nothing against Christianity-related articles on Wikipedia and in many instances I have worked on improving them and their categories. It is not "semantics" to point out that when dealing with newly founded groups that have just created their own new slogans, that it runs afoul of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Kindly avoid your empty threats (if you want to nominate anything for speedy keep do so..., it won't change the facts before us) and your paternalistic tone and posture towards me is not appreciated, as it's no substitute for refuting the arguments and objections I raise based on logic, facts and the truth. IZAK 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
          • IZAK I apologize if I came across as paternalistic and threatening. I addressed your objections based on logic, facts, and truth. I was rather disappointed that your commented more on my paternalistic tendencies than on any of the answers I gave you to your objections. However, in the interest of time, I don't find any of your objections meeting any specific criteria for VfD. Can you please present more specific and NPOV reasons for the VfD, according to WP:VfD? inigmatus 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm unable to find any reliable sources about the man. He doesn't seem to meet any part of WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 01:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article currently shows only links to personal and organizational web sites, none of which are acceptable evidence of notability per WP:V and WP:RS. We have deleted numerous articles on mainstream rabbis, ministers, etc., including many who have self-published books, on a very similar portfolio. It's been well-established over many precedents that simply being ordained or being a leader of a congregation or organization isn't enough, and self-published books aren't independent evidence of notability. Independent sources -- newspaper articles, journals of notable religious organizations, books published by known religious or other publishers, etc., are needed. If these aren't forthcoming, delete. The organization's POV is irrelevant here. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you want people to start posting links to ALL the authors that FFOZ has published? Would that increase it's notoriety in your eyes? Just ask, and you shall receive. inigmatus 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Noted Messianic Judaism educational organization; mentioned as such in (2005) in Rich Robinson, Rose Rothenstein: The Messianic Movement: A Field Guide for Evangelical Christians. Jews for Jesus, 97. ISBN 1881022625.  -- Kendrick7talk 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Kendrick, for those of us who don't have access to the book could you tell us what precisely it says? Note also that that still gives us exactly zero reliable sources on the topic. JoshuaZ 04:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Does the second link here work for you? -- Kendrick7talk 11:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, that works thanks. The mention there is "As a random sampling, such groups may include educational organizations, such as the First Fruits of Zion". That's hardly a compelling non-trivial reference. JoshuaZ 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, per Shirahadasha, not every clergyperson or organization is notable enough to merit an article at least according to WP:BIO. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was not planning to vote on this one, but the obvious POV in the previous discussion make it obvious that it should be kept. There is a distinctly non-Evangelical bias is some of WP and the best way to deal with it is to make a conscious effort to counter it, as I do. Perhaps I share the bias, but therefore make sure I do not express it in a discusssion such as this.DGG 07:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am the author of Boaz Michael. Inigmatus is correct about the notarity of FFOZ and BM among Messianics. If we are going to have project on MJ then shouldn't we have all the major players listed? I would hate to think that the powers that are of Wikipedia would show any attention to the venomous diatribe and unobjective argument by an obviously biased user. These articles may need editing, but don't meet the criteria for deletion. Please read my further comments on the discussion page of BM. Jamie Guinn 11:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep due to the totally POV wording of the nomination and several deletion votes. The fact that some Jewish people dislike Messanic Judaism is no reason to engage in histronics. Furthermore, the delete votes (with the exception of JoshuaZ) are not based on policy. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 13:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Also, shouldn't this be two AfD's? --ElaragirlTalk|Count 13:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep These are interesting articles and not POV. I'm confused as to what the dispute is here. MetsFan76 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Del per nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability can be shown. Examples of ways to demonstrate notability would be:
    1. An academic study of the Messianic Jewish movement that talks about FFOZ and/or Boaz Michael as significant in that movement.
    2. Several articles about the Messianic Jewish movement that make similar mention.
    3. Writings by theologians whose notability has been establisheed who either cite Boaz as an influence or at least as a figure whose views are significant enough even to address and dissent from.
    4. Book <by or about him/them> published by a major press, and/or reviewed in a major newspaper or magazine, and/or having verifiable sales in the tens of thousands.
There are many other possibilities. These are intended as illustrative. If he and his theology are genuinely of encyclopedic notability, this should not be hard to do. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
A simple Google search will pull up links to independent magazine sites, independent newsites, independent interviews, and more with those from FFOZ, Boaz, and others. Should we start compiling a list? How many references do we need? Let me know, and I'll start googling. inigmatus 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The number will depend on the quality. But WP:V is very clear that the burden is on the people who are writing the article to provide solid citations, not on the person challenging it to show that they don't exist. Much of what is on the web does not qualify as reliable sources, so just saying "it gets Google hits" doesn't count for much. The morass of weak quasi-citations in these articles as they stand tells me nothing: book titles without publishers, authors or ISBNs, web links which are just sitting their in a list with no indication of which are used as sources, and none of which offhand look like they would stand up by the criteria of WP:RS. I promise you that unlike some of the people commenting here I do not have an animus against the the topic, but so far this is the sort of article that does not obviously meet notability criteria. - Jmabel | Talk 08:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. Amoruso 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The people who say to delete the Messianic sites are simply rabid anti-Messianics who routinely lie about us. Like take IZAK. He is simply lying when he says that FFOZ and Boaz Michael don't teach Torah. That's the whole thrust of their organization, teaching Torah, as is easily verifiable by going to the website. MaccabeeAJB 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, MaccabeeAJB: Regardless of your direct personal attack, why would I lie? I have nothing against anyone who teaches Torah and I have nothing against anyone who wants to be a Christian, it's a free world as they say. But I do have a big problem when people who believe in Jesus, by any definition, not just me personally, are thus Christians, claim that they are teaching "Torah" which implies that they they are teaching "Judaism" -- which they are not. It is they that are trying to sell "the big lie" that if you coat belief in Jesus and Christianity in enough "Judaism" and "Jewish" and "Torah" jargon, then that will fool people into somehow buying into their false advertising. Let the Christians practice Christianity and the Jews practice Judaism, but when anyone says that "Judaism can be Christianity" or that "Christianity is somehow Judaism" we have to conclude that something very fishy and abnormal is taking place. Why create confusion? Only the gullible and the ignorant may be ensnared or taken in since 99.99% of people who have spent any amount of time studying Torah and Judaism know that "Messianic Judaism" is not Judaism. IZAK 07:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. Chavatshimshon 05:08, 3 December 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.