Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein (2nd nomination)

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 Keep. Cbrown1023 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignatz Lichtenstein

Ignatz Lichtenstein (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A prior AfD was overturned at deletion review due to the emergence of new sources (please review DRV discussion for a listing of the sources), so it is now back here for reconsideration. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Sources that have been provided are perfectly in line with WP:V. No reason to delete. metaspheres 09:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because this is a silly reincarnation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Lichtensteinx2. What a waste of time that we have to go through this Wikipedia:Hoax. IZAK 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Izak, please note that among the many reliable sources now discovered is the 1929 Hungarian Jewish Encyclopedia, and as such, it is (I hope) no longer possible for you to dismiss all the reliable sources as an elaborate conspiracy of Christian prosletysers. -- Kendrick7talk 10:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Kendrick7: Hungarian goulash is probably more authentic. People are missing the point entirely. There was and is absolutely nothing notable about Ignatz/Isaac either as a Jew or as a Christian. Note: Real rabbis with more achievements get deleted on Wikipedia simply because they are not notable, even if they have given speeches that were published. That Ignatz/Isaac allegedly wrote a few pamphlets and is quoted in missionary works and what the Messianic Jews are doing with him is an outright hoax because there is neither any meaning nor any impact of the tale about this totally insignificant "rabbi" from a Hungarian village having done what he allegedly did. Sure, those out to missionize the Jews may have thought they "struck gold" by grasping at this pathetic straw just as today's missionaries think they have uncovered some great "hero" here, worthy of a Wikipedia piece, when all they are holding onto is fools gold - a true hoax. IZAK 08:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please provide a link to the discussion of the new sources. --Dweller 12:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) -- Ah. Found it. Strong Keep. --Dweller 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) vote strengthened Dweller 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussion at Deletion review Catchpole 12:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussion at Deletion review - crz crztalk 12:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussion at Deletion review. Jamie Guinn 14:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Discussion at deletion review. However, I'd like to make it very clear that only the sources agreed to be reliable based on that discussion should be used in the article. JoshuaZ 16:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete the guy was nuts, not a WP:rule but just my 2c, and per IZAK. FrummerThanThou 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - if we deleted bios simply because the people they deal with were nuts, we'd have a lot fewer articles here. His views may have been distasteful to many, and he may have been a bit loopy, but not nearly as distasteful or loopy as others I could mention who have large articles (I won't mention some of them for fear of invoking Godwin's Law...) Grutness...wha? 22:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Brandt?? **GASP!** - crz crztalk 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - crz crztalk 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable person who created a controversial Judaic cult Alf photoman 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't matter that he was nuts, FrummerThanThou, so was David Koresh. MetsFan76 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Even if he's a hoax, he's a notable hoax, per Little Mikey. Further, I think it's difficult to argue Lichtenstein's non notable if he's cited as a notable founding father by today's Messianic Jews. Wikipedia comfortably accommodates many fictional characters of note... not to mention all the Biblical characters than non believers also consider to be fictional. The hoax issue is therefore a non starter. Notability is the key and if he's cited in key documentation used today by Messianic Jews I'd argue he's clearly notable. Sorry IZAK. I'm gritting my teeth and strengthening my keep vote above. --Dweller 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Dweller: And you can add the "non believers" as subscribing to the further fiction that they are evolved from baboon-like Neanderthals. Lots of fictions up in the air today it seems, take your pick... IZAK 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi Dweller: You seem to be mish-mashing a number of unrelated subjects. Ignatz/Isaac was not a "founding father" of anything, he died many years before the Messianic Jews and the Jews for Jesus movements were concocted by various Evangelical churches in the USA. (BTW, The Catholics don't get involved in attempts at creating disguied versions of Christianity, they have enough confidence in their brand name.) And you are not clear, are you saying that you may even agree with me and that the entire story may be hype that is ultimately fiction? And are you implying that Lichtenstein is worthy of article based on a distorted "reciprocity" of "if you respect my hoaxes then I will respect yours" what kind of logic and basis for an encyclopedia is that? The Messianics (who are Christians) will grasp at any straw to further their self-appointed mission of converting the Jews and will stop at nothing, including accepting stories that they know nothing about, in order to buttress their mssionizing which is doomed to fail because it is based on half-truths (beginning with the biggest one, that they insist on calling themselves "Judaism" when they are in actuality Christianity.) But I guess, we will just have to allow this to play itself out over time... IZAK 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your point(s?). Evolution is notable and therefore has an article. Messianic Jews' claims about Lichtenstein make him notable, I'm afraid. It's not about respect or hoaxes, it's about notability. If a substantial group of people suddenly claimed that my aunt was important for some trumped up reason, even if they were wrong, she'd be notable and encyclopedic. --Dweller 11:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Dweller: I was responding to your point that: "the Biblical characters that non believers also consider to be fictional" which is a pretty wild thing to throw into this discussion about a supposedly religious figure, since both Judaism and Christianity agree that the Hebrew Bible is 100% true, (and they obviously disagree about the New Testament because if they agreed to the New Testament as being true then there would not be Judaism, and if they agreed that the New Testament was false there would not be Christianity.) And I was merely adding an abvious rejoinder that if you throw in the red herring about "Biblical characters" perhaps being "fictional" then the counter-argument that evolutionists believe that they come from baboons is an equally fantastic fiction and hoax for those who do not buy into mythological and known-to-be fraudulent unscientific evolutionary "theories" -- as Abraham Lincoln said "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." What is so hard about grasping that? IZAK 11:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per DRV and prior AfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Question How do DRV or prior AFD stand up for this argmnt? frummer
  • Keep passes most WP:BIO tests, and is WP:V'd by numerous WP:RS's. -- Kendrick7talk 01:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all of the reasons I gave before.--Meshulam 02:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete contemporary authors with more publications have been deleted as non-notable. Publishing stuff doesn't make you notable. We need a source that will attest to his historical importance, but reading through the deletion review I don't see any such source. We are not here to conduct historical research or to resurrect long-forgotten historical figures. We can only write articles about people others think are important. GabrielF 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per first AfD and deletion review, plenty of meat for an article here. The popularity of shrubberies among delete opinions as high as ever: what would "a source that will attest to his historical importance" be? Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because he meets WP:BIO. We are an encyclopedia that is not paper. As such, we can keep all topics that other encyclopedias have chosen to cover. Among the reliable sources about him that were mentioned in the prior AFD and the Deletion Review is the 1929 Zsido Lexikon, a Jewish Encyclopedia written in Hungarian. Other reliable sources about him exist, so he meets WP:BIO, the relevant standard. As an encyclopedia, it is arguably more important to cover historical figures than contemporary figures - and certainly articles on them are less often subject to spam concerns, so there are reasons for deleting contemporary figures that don't apply to historical figures. GRBerry 14:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - IZAK's arguments that this is a hoax is pathetically unconvincing. - hahnchen 22:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree with Hahnchen and would like to add that this is an online encyclopedia, not a forum to attack an entry because it goes against your beliefs. MetsFan76 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons I gave before. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:04, 18 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.