Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Dmcdevit·t 07:07, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well... I was going to close it myself, but it's cool. Concur with vote results. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew
The previous VFD on this article was effectively sabotaged multiple (in some cases self-admitted) sockpuppetry, and was closed as "inconclusive" - i.e. it was not possible for the closing admin to determine what the votes actually were (as opposed to "no consensus").

Due to the sockpuppetry etc. involved previously, if you have under 200 edits prior to the re-opening of this VFD (which was at 00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)) your vote is likely to be discounted (particularly if you sign as another user, and make comments as if you were the other user rather than yourself).


 * The previous VFD, for anyone interested, is here.

Manner vote conducted
It is divided up by Keep, Delete, Merge and Comment. This is to make it easier to administer. Given the ridiculous situation we had last time, Ta bu shi da yu has imposed order on this vote!

Please keep comments short, and only place large extensive discussion/essays on the talk page. You can always link to the discussion from your comment. Any rebuttal should go in your comment(s) and be kept brief - if you wish to give more extensive reasoning, do so on the talk page or elsewhere and link to it. If you don't wish to vote, but wish to make a comment, please leave it in this section.

Ta bu shi da yu will administer the vote to deal with sockpuppetry etc. I will administer the vote. He will look at each accusation of sock-puppetry individually, and on their own merits.
 * Comment from TBSDY: I suggest that if new users want to have their vote count that they give a decently explained reason why it should be deleted/kept. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment from Garrett: I numbered the votes for easier counting, hope you don't mind. GarrettTalk 02:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I appreciate the gesture, but I'll be checking each vote one by one... not all votes will necessarily be counted (though they might possibly). We'll leave it numbered, but it might not reflect the final figure... - Ta bu shi da yu 10:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Reason for VFD
This article is basically original research.
 * It relies on assuming that Jerome's statement about a "Gospel of the Hebrews" was accurate
 * It is an almost universal opinion amongst academics and non-academics that Jerome's statement was an (innocent) error caused by lack of information, and that the "Gospel of the Hebrews" that he refers to were in fact 3 seperate texts -
 * The Gospel of the Hebrews
 * The Gospel of the Nazarenes
 * The Gospel of the Ebionites
 * It contains an opinion of why people might have wanted the Gospel of Matthew to exist
 * It presents an extremely POV view of the origin of the Gospel of Matthew, which is totally inconsistent with either the conservative religious view of their origin, or the critical academic view involving
 * Markan priority
 * Q document
 * Two source hypothesis
 * The relevant section on the origin of matthew at Gospel of Matthew
 * It bases all of this on a totally non-sequitur argument that as Eusebius said that "matthew wrote in hebrew letters", there is an entirely different gospel for the hebrews which is not dependant on Mark, and forms the basis of Matthew, and that this must therefore mean that the above 3 gospels (Hebrews/Nazarenes/Ebionites) are in fact 1 gospel not 3 despite the near unanimous opinion amongst academics and non academics to the contrary.
 * The origin of the Gospel of Matthew should be, and is already, discussed at Gospel of Matthew
 * None of the references actually support the argument of the text but instead either adhere to the standard critical academic view, or propose an entirely different argument altogether.
 * The article is even written as an essay/thesis, with introduction and conclusion.
 * The author of the article added detail to all articles relating to this area of the bible supporting the POV of the article. The only people setting up links to the article or even mentions of its thesis are 202.176.97.230 and the article's author themselves, and they may very well be one and the same.


 * The earlier version of the article had extensive duplication of source texts which are already on Wikisource - - when this was removed, it was restored by editors with very few edits indeed.


 * The author of the article has gone to extensive lengths, including RFAR (failed), to preserve it, and there have been many sockpuppets (many of which were admitted to be so - ).


 * The article has been reviewed by an editor (not me) who has a doctorate (PhD) in the study of the New Testament, and been said to be unsalvagable original research by that editor.


 * Even the article's title is POV

Keep

 * 1) Keep content, but Move to appropriate title (this is a valid topic for an article independent of Gospel of Matthew. Any salvageable material will obviously have to be NPOV'd, and this time, I would like to strongly encourage both combatants and their armies of beady-eyed undergarments to work disputes out civilly on the talkpage.  Tomer TALK  04:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. There's obviously some material that's not original research.  Once the frenzied atmosphere of the VfD is over, the article should be cleaned up and probably retitled. JamesMLane 01:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep the unoriginal research. ;-)  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. No case has been made for the "original research" claim; this VfD seems to me to have more to do with -Ril-'s feud with the writers of the article than anything else.  The article certainly needs considerable work, but that's not the issue here. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. I have absolutely no feud with the article's creator outside the article. Indeed, I HAVE NEVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE IN ANYTHING EXCEPT CONCERNING THE EXISTANCE OF THE ARTICLE.     09:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep and cleanup. Potential for a valid article.  Contains some original research, but that can be excised. -- Visviva 09:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. It needs to be cleaned up, but there is potential and it doesn't seem to meet the standard of original research Salsb 16:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. The version I read Friday was a clear object for deletion, but the original research that was there has been removed, & although I'd prefer this article to have a different title ("Authentic Matthew" strongly suggests a specific POV to me), the version I read today seems to be a reasonably objective & nonpartisan discussion of the issues. -- llywrch 22:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep- though controversial, the topic seems to be legit. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 22:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep, as I voted on the previous VFD. Well writte article on a notable subject. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep - Needs a cleanup but an interesting article that is noteworthy. hansamurai &#39151;&#20365; (burp) 00:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong Keep This vfd is nonsense. freestylefrappe 02:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep Very good--April12 11:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * - user's 8th edit. james gibbon 13:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete

 * Note to anyone in Taiwan: If you are voting to delete please let me know, as it could affect my vote being counted. Davilla 21:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Delete in the strongest possible way     00:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete. Original research, NPOV. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Delete based on most but not all of the preceeding arguements. Hamster Sandwich 01:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Delete I don't see anything substantial in this article which does not already appear in Gospel of Matthew. Disucssion of the various theories is fairly complete there. -Harmil 02:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) stone with stones; this depends entirely on Jerome being right about their being a single writing. However a mention of this possibility (possibility, mind) in a parent article would probably be good too. Also I'd say the bible scholar's "damnation" of it carries a lot of weight. Oh and a heap of brownie points go to Ta bu shi da yu for bravely overseeing all these contentious Vfds of late. Good to know the result will be guaranteed "barefoot". :) GarrettTalk 03:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) VORPED (Vanity - Original Research - Personal Essay - Delete!) Stirling Newberry 06:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Delete as original research. --Carnildo 07:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Delete, I don't believe that anything in this piece warrants an article separate from the main gospel of Matthew entry james gibbon 10:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Delete: The amount of tinfoil hattery around the early Gospels is extreme. This article ignores everything from Higher Criticism on to weave together a wishlist view, arguably to support a further POV (not in the article but which the article will be used to support) for one heretical view or another.  Honestly, these schemes and arguments are thick as flies in history.  There can be no merge, as that requires equally merging in all other variant readings of the origins of the Gospel and non-Q sources, and we would indeed run out of not-paper doing so.  There is no keep, because there is no support for this view that makes it representative enough to need explication, and it obviously isn't just "true" or "accepted as true" by the wider community.  Geogre 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Delete, for reasons given. While I wouldn't necessarily oppose the verifiable elements being included into Matthew, ascertaining what those elements are would likely be an enormous headache, and not worth the trouble. I'm sure it would take multiple RfCs. I love the title though. Maybe we can get a page on Amazing Larry and Erudite Steve. -R. fiend 17:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Delete. Seems to be hopelessly POV. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 18:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Extremely strong delete – I have researched and taught New Testament, and I’ve never even heard of ‘Authentic Matthew’. This article takes all sorts of (disputed) asides from the Church Fathers, adds them to several unrelated scholarly theories about synoptic origins – to produce what is a piece of (bad) original research. It is about as factual as the Da Vinci Code! Any (notable} proto-Matthean theories should be discussed under Gospel of Matthew or Synoptic problem. Links to this drivel have been inserted into other Biblical studies articles. --Doc (?) 21:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Delete POV-pushing original research. If there's anything encyclopedic here, it could go in Gospel of Matthew, but not in this POV fork. CDC   (talk)  23:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Delete as per Harmil and nominator. …Markaci 2005-07-25 T 23:15:28 Z
 * 15) Delete original research/essay. JamesBurns 06:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Delete per above.  Grue  08:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) DELETE. The argument that it is cited does not justify its validity, as even original research must be cited for publication. There is no such term as Authentic Matthew (see my Google search on previous VFD) as verified by Doc above, so it should at least be moved, if worthy of that, or merged, as already attended to. Davilla 10:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Delete - changed my vote because everything useful was already merged. Renata3 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Delete - POV original research. carmeld1 23:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Delete - POV/original research/all usable material already merged/name inherently violates NPOV policy -- and how can you have a recount without telling those who voted originally that they have to revote, I'm lucky I saw this. DreamGuy 05:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Delete - While an article with a different title and wholly different content could be written on this subject, it would far better to start from scratch. - SimonP 21:37, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Merge

 * 1) Merge what is verifiable with Gospel of Matthew.Capitalistroadster 04:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Merge whatever pertinent information that isn't covered under Gospel of Matthew, then Delete for most of the reasons listed above (except for the last three). khaosworks 02:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Merge anything salvageable with Matthew the Evangelist (more appropriate IMHO than Gospel of Matthew). --Angr/undefined 06:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Merge - put some reference of "alternative theories" on the Gospel of Mathews page. Renata3 17:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Looks to have some verifiable and useful information despite its poor presentation. Merge with Gospel of Matthew or other relevant pages, then redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:13, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Comment

 * ''Please add your comments here, if they are not direct responses to votes. Please also make it short. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If I were allowed to vote, I would vote keep because, if the Gospel is true, then who wrote it is a separate issue from its existence, and if it is not true, then no amount of writing about it will ever make it true. To paraphrase Arthur C Clarke: when an eminent [bible scholar] says something is impossible, it probably isn't. Respectfully, Simon Cursitor 12:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Simon, the argument here is not whether this theory is correct, or even possible. It is whether this is a position being argued by any notable scholar, in a way that WP can record. It is not (although individual bits of it may be) - and thus it is original research. Even if the thesis was factually correct - it still would have no place here. --Doc (?) 21:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: to whichever admin closes this VfD &mdash;  took control of the previous VfD, deleting and moving to the Talk page comments opposed to his position, while leaving in comments supporting him, including many of his own (including personal attacks and unsubstantiated guesses at sockpuppetry presented as dogmatic claims). He made a real mess. This VfD contains FALSE information. Please check the record of the previous VfD.--Mikefar 15:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Above user has 56 prior edits, only 11 edits not connected to preserving this article, admits to using many sockpuppets - - and claims to be the original writer of the article -  - i.e. Melissadolbeer -      08:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations.


 *  Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
 * Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

and
 * In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2) Comment I have no desire to get involved this farce but Ril, you are not being honest. Mr Far clearly has not written this article, and you are lying. What worries is that you and other are hurting Wikipedia. Closing admin should use care. Ril, Shame Shame
 * No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published  ...See previous VfD
 * Above is an unsigned comment by Mikefar, who has 56 prior edits, only 11 edits not connected to preserving this article, admits to using many sockpuppets - - and claims to be the original writer of the article -  - i.e. Melissadolbeer -      08:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * unsigned by 209.53.181.47 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; block), identical to 209.53.181.26 (talk &bull; contribs &bull; block)     22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Mr Far" claims to have been the one who wrote the article - evidence:      22:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And you are clearly a sockpuppet.     22:48, 26 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.