Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notzrim


 * 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   redirect to Nazarene. Consensus is that this is not a fit subject for an article and that any useable content should be merged to the appropriate articles. The target of the redirect is one of several that have been proposed, it can be changed as deemed appropriate by editorial consensus.  Sandstein  06:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Notzrim

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is, basically, about a term used in different circumstances by different groups to, apparently, describe groups which are not apparently related. So far as I can see, there are no encyclopedic articles which clearly relate to the topic directly. In fact, two of the apparent sources used to establish notability seem to be dictionary definitions of the term, and such dictionary definitions are generally not counted as sufficient to establish notability. I do note that there are books listed on Google as well as at least one new religious movement which use the term prominently, but there does not seem to be any reason to believe either the books or NRMs are themselves notable. I have every reason to believe that the article, as it exists, will never reach encyclopedic quality, given the various ways in which the term has been used and the lack of immediately obvious and/or noted connections between them. I believe the best alternative might be to turn the page to a redirect or a dab page, and that, potentially, it might also be best locked to some degree to prevent recreation of similarly problematic articles in the future. John Carter (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -John Carter (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support/delete and REDIRECT either to existing dab Nazarene or to Nazarene (title), since all Notzri(m) is is the Hebrew translation of Nazarene (title), just as there is no separate article for nasraya (ܕܢܨܪܝܐ) in Aramaic, or Nasrani (نذاريون) in Arabic. Paste across any relevant/sourced non-duplicate content. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Remark: Delete and Redirect are mutually exclusive. --Lambiam 07:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Editor2020 spent a considerable amount of time on this. On that basis alone I think it should not be deleted.  Just look at the references section. ---Canstusdis (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And the time and effort of In ictu oculi and Firecircle among many others. (I didn't originally look at the entire revision history of Notzrim. I'm in awe.)  Nevertheless, I'm in agreement with Ovadyah's comments below: "...deletion of all this sourced content is out of the question."  I suppose that makes me in favor of Redirect. ---Canstusdis (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it's purely Wikipedia terminology that AfD is often articles for delete and REDIRECT, there'd be no need to salt a redlink in this case, but there almost certainly will be a need to protect the REDIRECT to prevent another POVfork being spun out of it as happened to Jayjg 3 years ago. The academically credible refs are mainly duplicated on the relevant articles anyway. I undertake to do a thorough check and make sure no mainstream modern WP:sources are lost in the AfD/REDIRECT process. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do what you think best, my friend. If you need some help in any way feel free to ask me.  I'm a pretty good proofreader.  ---Canstusdis (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. If Notzrim is simply the Hebrew word for early Jewish Christians, and if we already have an article about the early Jewish Christians under the title Nazarene, then it's a duplicate/fork. If the notzrim were not the same thing as the Nazarenes, then I haven't been able to see that from the article. PiCo (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. As I already pointed out on the Notzrim talk page, merging this content into other articles is not a simple copy/paste editing job. Part of the article is about the Hebrew name Notzrim as a synonym for Christians.  That can be merged into the Nazarene (title) article.  Part is about Nazarenes as a Christian sect.  That can be merged into the Nazarene (sect) article.  However, the article also covers a Samaritan/Jewish sect unrelated to Christianity - the Nasaraioi - that practiced daily immersions and are somehow culturally related to the Mandaeans.  The article could be broken up and merged into these three articles.  However, deletion of all this sourced content is out of the question.  Ovadyah (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no article Nasaraioi - do you mean Nazarenes (sect)? PiCo (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This content implying that the Nazarenes and the Nasaraioi are the same sect is mistaken. Whoever wrote this should find something else to work on.  Ovadyah (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Yeshu, merging any usable and appropriate material to articles such as Yeshu, Judaism's view of Jesus, Nazarene (title), and Nazarene (sect). The present article is an unsupportable mishmash of elements tenuously related by Hebrew terminology. --Lambiam 07:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (which includes merge). Nothing is gained by deletion, and much would be lost. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect. This article is a mish-mash of various topics/POVFORK. Whatever is in it of value should be merged to the relevant articles. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * NB FYI page protection expired and the Knanaya (Indian Nasrani) IPs are back again, one of them just short-circuited this discussion by doing a page REDIRECT to Nazarenes which was a double redirect to Nazarene (sect) (which is about the 4th Century group), though the more sensible REDIRECT for what is just a Hebrew spelling of Nazarene (title) would be Nazarene (title) (per Hebrew wikipedia FWIW) given that no Hebrew text refers to the Nazarene (sect) of the 4th Century, but only to mainstream Christians as per Nazarene (title). I can't undo, so have fixed to neutral Nazarene disamb page while AfD/REDIRECT discussion is ongoing
 * NB Ovadyah and Michael Price, the comments above, with respect, appear to be related to fringe theories about pre-Christian Nazarenes (?) and aren't relevant here, and those theories are already overweight in the main articles. The issue here is simple; AfD this Dicdef/POVfork, and REDIRECT it where? Lambian, Notzrim is plural so cannot be redirected to Jesus, the Hebrew word means Christians, plural. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are alleging some kind of conflict of interest here, then spit it out. I might ask the same question, with respect, about editors that appear to be determined to delete reliably sourced content rather than merge parts of it into main articles.  Ovadyah (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where, in the section Yeshu, the term Notzri is discussed, it can simply be added that this is the standard term for "Christian" in both Rabbinic and modern Hebrew, and that the plural is Notzrim. --Lambiam 16:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lambian, thanks for having fixed the IP's preemptive edit, I didn't know the whole page could be restored like that. Yes I guess Notzri singular belongs in Yeshu, but actually Yeshu itself is overripe for an AfD as it is also a POVfork and Dicdef, duplicating material covered in Jesus in the Talmud and other articles. Ultimately articles should have English titles in English Wikipedia, unless they represent concepts which genuinely have no English. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect as per Jayjg. Imo, there should be a proposal to merge to get wider community involvement before the specifics are decided of what is to be merged and where the redirect is going.  I don't care where it goes, but this should be an open process that allows time for alternative proposals and reasoned arguments on the talk page.  Ovadyah (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Um, so far as I know, Ovadyah, this discussion is the proposal to get wider community involvement in the material. AfD is not only for discussing possible deletion, but also any and all other proposals, including merger. And I still do not see anyone directly addressing what seems to me to be the primary reason I initiated this discussion, which is that, so far as I can see, there is no clear evidence to date that this subject meets basic notability guidelines as per WP:N. And also, Ovadyah, if you are as per your earlier comments alleging that others are, to quote you directly, "determined to delete reliably sourced content rather than merge parts of it into main articles," please be so good as to indicate specifically who you are referring to. So far as I have seen, no one has actually made statements to that effect yet, and I don't see any particular value in making unsupported insinuations about the motivations of other editors. Personally, if either the apparently nonnotable books or NRMs were to ever be clearly notable enough for separate articles, I don't see that there would be any objections from anyone to their existence. So far as I know, they haven't been, however. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you speak for In ictu oculi now. That's good to know because I asked my question in response to her/him.  Perhaps that is because you are both members of the same editing cabal known as the User_talk:In_ictu_oculi or User_talk:In_ictu_oculi.  Ovadyah (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's something that John's proposed before and I am increasingly sympathetic. There is too much overweight/fringe/OR/POV material on a wide belt of Wikipedia articles relating to these subjects - a sort of John Allegro effect - and maybe a "cabal" trying to put mainstream modern SBL and academic secondary and teritary sources into articles would be a good thing. However for the here and now we're discussing a deletion for Notzrim as a POVfork and Dicdef. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming what I have suspected for some time now. Btw, you forgot to sign your post.  Ovadyah (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ovadyah, there's nothing to suspect, removing overweight/fringe/OR/POV material is a Wikipedia norm. (anyway, subject for another time and place maybe). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, I would like to point out that although I am grateful that Ovadyah did, apparently, eventually, acknowledge that he was intending to criticize In ictu oculi specifically in the comment of his I first referred to, at no point prior to my comment did he make that clear, and that I believe it was on that basis a reasonable question to ask of Ovadyah. The fact that he chose to react in such a way as to make assumptions about others based on at best insufficient evidence, effectively violating WP:AGF twice on the same page, regarding two different editors, is I believe a potentially serious cause for concern. Yes, I too believe it is possible that certain individuals who are perhaps overly reliant on Google and other search engines to source articles may come to false conclusions about what is and is not reliable and/or notable, and that is a rather serious concern. In fact, comments to that effect have been made before in wikipedia, and not just by editors involved here. I myself would have no objections to the page being userfied into In ictu oculi's userspace so that he would have a chance to ensure that the content be transposed to the relevant articles and existing dab page before that content is outright deleted. That, honestly, seems to me perhaps the best way to proceed here. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * John Carter, the only one showing bad faith here is you for accusing me of violating WP:AGF and explicitly questioning my motives. In ictu oculi and I have a demonstrated productive editing relationship, and assumptions of good faith on her/his part are not an issue for me.  The real issue is a general pattern of "correcting" articles in this category by "removing overweight/fringe/OR/POV material".  This is a laudable goal when speaking in generalities, but the devil is in the details and it depends on what one means by "mainstream" content.  For example, names derived from Hebrew are apparently a problem for your editing group (also see the ongoing debate at Talk:Yeshu), while names derived from Greek and Latin are seen as "mainstream".  Moving the article to In ictu oculi's user page does not make the editing process more transparent and encourage community involvement.  Therefore, I am opposed to your suggestion for that reason only.  Ovadyah (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ovadyah, I'm glad we have a productive editing relationship, let's try and keep it that way.
 * > names derived from Hebrew are apparently a problem for your editing group, while names derived from Greek and Latin are seen as "mainstream".< firstly "Editing group" is a bit premature, the Christianity work group is dormant,but secondly:
 * Notrzim is not a name derived from Hebrew it is a Hebrew plural noun.
 * Nazoraoi is not a name derived from Greek it is a Greek plural noun.
 * Nazareni is not a name derived from Latin it is a Latin plural noun (e.g. in omnibus synagogis sub nomine Nazarenorum anathematizent uocabulum Christianum (in Esaiam 5, 18-19).
 * These terms all have their place on Hebrew/Latin/Greek wikipedia, but this is English language Wikipedia and article headings should be in English.
 * When does AfD end? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point. Perhaps the title of the article is intrinsically unsuitable as a dictionary definition, while the content of the article is suitable but should be merged with a redirect for reasons Jayjg articulated earlier.  Unfortunately, the discussion of whether Hebrew names are suitable for article titles is being held at Talk:Yeshu) rather than here.  The AfD ends when an admin who did not participate in this process comes along and says it ends.  Ovadyah (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If "Notzrim" is a plural Hebrew noun then it's not worth having an article about. Here's a page from the web that says it's something else - a Gnostic sect. It looks to me like a copy of an old Wikipedia article, and I have no idea how accurate it it, but at least it's clear about its subject - which is more than can be said of Notzrim at the moment. If that piece contains a germ of truth, and can be traced to verifiable sources, it would make a good basis for the reform of our article.PiCo (talk) 03:44, 20 July 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.