Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein (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 speedy keep. Notability has been clearly established, and all delete !votes come from newly registered SPA users with an edit style that is strongly indicative of sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatz Lichtenstein

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Verification could not be obtained from independent sources. There are lots of messianic partisan sources adduced in the article - but nothing independent and impartial, non-notable and not independently verifiabile. Could just as well be a messianic legend. --Joseph3333 (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC) — Joseph3333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Closing administrator please note: This editor has 13 edits total. Ikip (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete, I myself used to be a Messianic Jew, and I can tell you all of the alleged Orthodox rabbis who became Christian or Messianic, were never rabbis to start for example many Messianics still think Michael Esses, was an Orthodox rabbi, he made a book claiming such, later research showed the alleged yeshiva he attended never existed to start, yet Messianics still claim him as such, the fact is this guy never was an Orthodox rabbi--Jacob Cohen 1977 (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC) — Jacob Cohen 1977 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

and what does the notability of Esses have to do with the notability of Lichtenstein? If your claim is that no messianic leader can be notable, I think that might be regarded is not showing a NPOV. DGG (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is some verification: [1]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: source you provide is unreliable, it is published by Missionary Publication co, an unreliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha166 (talk • contribs)

Keep based on Pastor Theo's info and the numerous sources shown in the article and previous deletion review. Nomination incorrectly categorizes these sources. Edward321 (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jacob Cohen --Alpha166 (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jacob Cohen and Joseph--JewishTeen111 (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — JewishTeen111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep This appears like a WP:IDONTLIKE argument dressed in a policy facade.

429 google book references, including:

How Jewish is Christianity? By Stanley N. Gundry, Louis Goldberg, William Varner, John Fischer p. 51: ...Isaac Lichenstein...were leaders in an earlier "Messianic congregational" movement.

Testimonies of Jews Who Believe in Jesus By Ruth Rosen p. 300, biography listed.

Also from past AfDs:

An early biography appears in Smith, Eugene R. (1894). The Gospel in All Lands. New York: Hunt & Nation. pp. 507–508.. The text is freely available on google books. It's unclear why he is sometimes referred to as Issac instead of Ignatz, and othertimes both. An Ignatz Lichtenstein also witnessed a Jewish birth certificate in Slovakia (then part of Hungary no?), on 25 May 1886 ([2], see also [3]

The journal cited, The Gospel in All Lands seems to be a chronicler of worldwide Christian news, founded by Albert Benjamin Simpson; it in turn cites a magazine it calls the London Christian. And the story presented seems to mesh with what's in the wikipedia article up to 1894 in this person's life. There doesn't seem to be grounds to doubt its reliability out of hand.

Entering his name in the Harvard library catalog turns up some of his books.He seems relatively unknown and may only borderline pass WP:BIO, except that he is apparently an important historic figure for the messianics so I see no reason to delete.

If editors don't like the way this article is written, then help rewrite it. If editors think this man is a hoax, find sources to back this up and add it to the article.

Wikipedia has articles on hoaxes too.

As is, this AfD is a disruptive waste of everyone's time. In violation of WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article." Also WP:Before and the policy WP:PRESERVE. Ikip (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source show he was an Orthodox rabbi, if he was a Jew is not the question --ParisYid (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — ParisYid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I found this on the DRV - "* The 1929 Zsido Lexikon (Jewish Encyclopedia) article [4] says the following about him:

"In the 1890s the village [of Tápiószele] became known nationwide because of a remarkable incident. Ignác Liechtenstein, the rabbi of the village, published a pamphlet called Judentum und Christentum [german: Jewry and Christianity] with the motto "those for whom the Jewish creed is too difficult, should seek their rapture in the arms of Jesus". The pamphlet's publication caused great consternation across the country and demands for the removal of the rabbi. He also had supporters, which laid the ground for a massive conflict. In the end the rabbi stepped down voluntarily following the public indignation. The rabbi's seat remained empty until 1923."

Ergo: He had his 15 minutes of fame when he was known nationwide; he also published articles and pamphlets." The AfDs and DrV are quite a read for those into it all. -- Banjeboi 15:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this guy is really not notable, you simply want to keep this article because you want to convert the Jews to shirk (idolatry), Lichtenstein doesn't even have his own entry on that source--Texas Muslimah (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)— Texas Muslimah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Closing administrator please note: , editor has 3 edits total, all here. Ikip (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspisious activity All of the delete votes thus far are by brand new, Single purpose account editors, except Alpha166. Ikip (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bordering on Speedy. Clearly notable from the Google Books list above and from a Google Scholar search as well. Many of the delete arguments seem to be more from a content dispute ("no reliable source show he was an Orthodox rabbi"), or an IDONTLIKEIT/POV angle ("you simply want to keep this article because you want to convert the Jews to shirk"), neither of which are a reason for deletion, but rather for discussion on the talk page of the article. Arakunem^Talk 17:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Can someone favoring deletion please explain what has changed since the 2nd AfD? What new arguments are there. What was erroneous in that AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there might be arguments that the article needs to be improved, but clearly sails over the notability bar and is verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Once looked at that way, what else is there to say?Bali ultimate (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination propagated by SPA and/or meatpuppetry at the least. Article is reliably sourced as-is, and notability is clearly established. MuZemike 19:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural and substantive keep - we don't need wikidrama of people gaming Wikipedia by dominating AfD discussions through socking or meatpuppeting. On the face of it there does appear to be independent reliable sourcing sufficient to establish notability (though by their nature they may not be fully reliable, or at least not the end-all, in establishing controversial matters related to his religion). Given that it is a credible article, that the person clearly existed and is of some historic interest to some people, and that it has already survived two AfDs, I see no reason to more fully entertain a new deletion discussion at the behest of Wikipedians who are either brand new and inexperienced, or conversely who are signing up on duplicate accounts. Wikidemon (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep it looks like to me. Is clearly notable.Yobmod (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2009 (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.