Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complete Jewish Bible


 * 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   merge to Messianic Bible translations. per WP:ATD (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Complete Jewish Bible

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable Bible. Igetome (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Igetome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete - This is not a mainstream used translation. --Messasss (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge to Messianic Bible translations - Wikipedia's book notability guideline includes: "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: ... 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a ... religious movement."  A quick Google shows this book in use at many self-identified groups of "Messianic Judaism", a religious movement that is the the book's stated target audience.  And a search at Amazon shows that this book and its companion commentaries hold the #1 through #5 sales rank positions in the category "Best Sellers in Messianic Judaism".  I think that's enough to push it into 'notable' territory. Zad68 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * UPDATED VOTE to Merge, after reading what other wrote I now think the sources I was using to justify notability are not good enough. This work does not have the real, independent, reliable sources that demonstrate a "significant contribution to a ... religious movement" but I think there is enough there to support entry in a list, which has a lower threshold for inclusion. Zad68 (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about an edition, rather than a book, unless Dr. David H. Stern wrote the whole thing from scratch (which needs to be emphasized in the article, if true). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article already says
 * The Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) is an English translation of the Bible by Dr. David H. Stern. It consists of both Stern's revised translation of the Old Testament plus his original "Jewish New Testament" translation in one book. The Old Testament translation is a paraphrase of the 1917 Jewish Publication Society version. The New Testament is Stern's original translation from the ancient Greek
 * Doesn't "his original ... translation" indicate the Greek translation is his own work? What would need to be said to make it clearer? Zad68 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - According to the CJB's introduction, the JNT was the first translation of its kind and (much later) the CJB also the first of its kind. Having a Bible translation of your own certainly makes a significant impact on any religious movement and being the first seem to qualify as "notable."  I included this information in my 'keep' vote below -Soren.
 * Comment - Once again something related to a Jewish Jesus group is being targeted for deletion. Just like Zola Levitt, List of Messianic Jewish organizations, Michael L. Brown, etc. have all been recent targets for deletion. Often this is done with brand new accounts like Red-necked_Grebe and the one who submitted this article Igetome. They are usually single purpose accounts. Basileias (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that whether or not the delete was prompted by an SPA, that in and of itself is not justification for rejecting the AFD. Zad68 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Response I never said it should be rejected. Nor did I even vote. What I am pointing out it is a movement to remove articles that I think, a perspective some want to suppress. Basileias (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Remember, assume good faith,  don't bite the newcomers.  If you suspect these new users are sockpuppets of each other, you can request an investigation at WP:SPI.  However I took a quick look at the editors and articles you brought up:  The AfD for Zola Levitt was brought by user:JzG, who has been editing since January 2006 on a wide variety of topics, this is certainly not a SPA.  As it happens, I brought the AfD for List of Messianic Jewish organizations, which was declined.  I am not a sock puppet of these other accounts.  user:Red-necked Grebe, who brought the AFD for Michael L. Brown, is a new account, and you voted in that AfD, but realize that SIX other editors all voted to delete, and an independent third-party administrator makes the final call.  I think you're rushing far too quickly to a conclusion that sound like you believe articles concerning this subject matter are 'under attack' by a co-ordinated group of SPAs. Zad68 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
 * Any published Bible translation is probably notable by Wikipedia's criteria. It may not capture a lot of market share, but a distinctive translation such as this is very notable. I find no reason to delete this, and many reasons to keep it. Pete unseth (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - if a weak keep. I agree with Pete unseth above that distinctive translations qualify as notable. This particular MJ translation may, reasonably, get little coverage outside of the MJ community, which has comparatively little press, but that is a separate matter. However, if the article is kept, however, and notability is not fairly quickly established, a merge to the article on the author might not be a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The only thing I would want is at least 2 independent reviews to be used as references and to help build the article, then I would say Keep. --BSTemple (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * merge to Messianic Bible translations as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails notability. Fringe sources. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

--TiberiasTiberias (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is a generic term. Lots of what I researched with the name "Complete Jewish Bible" is not connected to this book. There seem to be no reliable 3rd party references to show why this book is notable. All the mentions do not show notability.


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=jTWlhe7wlN8C&pg=PA454&dq=%22Complete+Jewish+Bible%22&hl=en&ei=bbDITqanOpCGhQeh3KjfDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=%22Complete%20Jewish%20Bible%22&f=false


 * http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=l_DdHf43iwoC&pg=PA238&dq=%22Complete+Jewish+Bible%22+-stern&hl=en&ei=jUnSTtazLdGL4gSt3o0b&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Complete%20Jewish%20Bible%22%20-stern&f=false
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete Sources are not provided to show the notability of this edition of the Bible. Having said that, honesty compels me to agree that WP is indeed heavily censored to keep out information that some people "don't like." I am 100% pro-Jewish and pro-Israel as well, just to let you know. However I think that truth is always the best weapon against ignorance. Thanks for letting me vent. I feel better now. :-) Also adding that the book sounds interesting and useful. Many people, especially in the USA, are familiar with Jewish culture and something like this could be helpful in understanding what the Bible is talking about. -BigJim707 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi BigJim707, please note that even though the author chose to name this book "Complete Jewish Bible", this particular work is not used by any follower of Judaism. Instead it is for followers of the misleadingly-named religious movement that calls itself "Messianic Judaism", and which is actually a form of Christianity and not Judaism.  If you are interested in Jewish culture, including what texts followers of actual Judaism use, take a look at Torah_database. Zad68 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did get that. BigJim707 (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There are probably 1000's of various bible editions/translations/versions/updates, etc that exist. Using the original Hebrew names like Eliyahu for "Elijah", Sha'ul for "Saul" does not make it notable. PS All bibles use Hebrew words, for example hallelujah and amen. --Saladacaesar (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The Jewish Bible is called the Torah not the Bible [] I realize my point seems semantic and simplistic but it is not. Calling the Torah the Bible is like calling an apple an orange, though they are both fruits they are very different and a knowledgeable author would realize the difference.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, this differentiation is deliberately undermined by the author of the edition in question. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By author I believe you are referring to the original author of the book not the Wiki article author. As I am reading your comment that reference would be a (edit) original source for the material and fall outside the Wiki guidelines concerning WP: PSTS.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is getting off-topic, but trying to clarify: The complete Jewish bible is actually called the Tanakh, and the 5 books of Torah are only the first of 3 parts of it.  The author of this book discussed in this AfD, David Stern, has chosen to call his work "The Complete Jewish Bible".  As the phrase "The Complete Jewish Bible" is not trademarked, he can call whatever collection of books he wants by that name, even though his work is unacceptable for use by followers of Judaism.  For that matter, I can take a collection of nursery rhymes and publish it under the name "The Complete Islam Quran" or whatever. Zad68 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is possible that you have made my point in a better way then I did with this statement ................... "even though his work is unacceptable for use by followers of Judaism" nor do I believe that it would have been well received if were called the "The Complete Jewish Quran". I do not consider myself a scholar on the subject nor is one needed.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Messianic Bible translations, where it already has a paragraph but could stand a little (and I do only mean a little) expansion. Any published Bible edition probably deserves a place on a list somewhere on Wikipedia, possibly even one that is described as a "paraphrase" of an existing one and is not published by a mainstream publisher. The article is starkly void of any clear claim of notability and I don't see any independent references on it either. The "findsources" links demonstrate that there are some independent references that could be used but a quick skim of them found only passing mentions or list entries (as well as a lot of completely irrelevant hits) with nothing more substantial jumping out. These would help improve verifiability but I see nothing making this notable enough for its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not complete and is not Jewish. Seems like it is looking to fool people into thinking this is something when it is not. Does not seem to be Encyclopedic to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6000Mir (talk • contribs) 11:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand such criticisms but this doesn't make it an unencyclopaedic topic. A book can be a total fraud (not saying this one is) and still be notable (although I very much doubt this one is). Having an article about something is not the same as endorsing it. We need to be objective and look at this based on the inclusion criteria and avoid letting our personal like or dislike of a thing influence us. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I came across this Bible translation (Old Testament paraphrase, New Testament original translation to English) in the Ocean Beach branch of the San Diego Public Library System. As a Christian Science Sunday School teacher, I had been looking for ways to help my students dig into the Bible and had always wondered whether a Bible existed that used more context-aware names than Peter, Paul, and Mary, etc.  This New Testament translation is not just a replacement of names (a Hebrew Names Version/background is also available) but a significant, original translation that takes into account a Jewish perspective.  I am not familiar with Messianic Jewish theology, but I teach my students regularly about the Jewish context of the Bible and am looking forward to using this book in my classes.  When I went to order it just now from my local bookstore, Wikipedia was the only page that quickly came up in a search that wasn't trying to sell me a copy (wikipedia also helped me find the publisher's web site).  I am not an expert on the relevance of Bible translations, but I have used a number in my work as both an elected Reader and Sunday School teacher in my Christian Science church.  The Complete Jewish Bible is included by mainstream bible resources like BibleStudyTools.com.  I believe that this work (and its ISBN number(s)) definitely deserve mention somewhere on wikipedia.  If it were to be merged with anything, one page could explain Stern's original translation of the New Testament: "Jewish New Testament" and how it led to the creation of the Complete Jewish Bible.  According to the Complete Jewish Bible's Introduction, it exists in large part to deliver Stern's Jewish New Testament along with a paraphrase/revision of a previous Old Testament translation which together provide Messianic Jews with a single, complete (meaning old and new testaments) book in a consistent (modern) style.  The introduction also indicates that the JNT was the first translation of its kind and the CJB also the first of its kind.  I think that qualifies this book as having made "a significant contribution to a ... religious movement." -Soren (5 Dec 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.206.237 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Soren, you wrote:
 * When I went to order it just now from my local bookstore, Wikipedia was the only page that quickly came up in a search that wasn't trying to sell me a copy
 * For exactly this reason that you stated yourself, this book fails the Wikipedia criteria of notability for books and therefore should not have its own Wikipedia article. Zad68 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Adding Stern to the search for Complete Jewish Bible helps focus the results considerably, and it's clear that Stern's bible has been the subject of third-party coverage. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:00, 6 December 2011 (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.