Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:53, 21 July 2005

Authentic Matthew

This VFD concerns the above AND its copy+paste duplicate, if recreated, at Authentic Gospel of Matthew.

Article is

a large source text
discussion of Eusebius' opinions on Biblical Canon
Original research assuming accuracy of Jerome's erroneous [according to the majority of relevant scholars] claim that the Gospel of the Hebrews was the same as the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites

This was merged by me, as a result of someone else requesting a merge, as follows

The source text is already at WikiSource
Salvagable content about Eusebius and Biblical Canon was already moved to Eusebius and Biblical Canon.
Salvagable content about the Gospel of the Hebrews merged there.
Unsalvagable original research deleted.

This was then changed into a redirect to Gospel of the Hebrews.

There followed an edit war between editors restoring the article and me returning the redirect. The editors restoring the article (not including the recent addition of Mel Etitis, who was requested to do so by one of the aforementioned editors, and appears to have a vendetta against me for no known reason) are in my opinion sockpuppets of Melissadolbeer - the original creator of the article. For further discussion of this alleged sockpuppetry see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer.

Reply to VFD

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)

Wikipedia:No original research Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published.

--Melissadolbeer 06:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

DELETE. ~~~~ 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No vote (for the moment) - I've a Phd in New Testament - and I'm going to need time to get my head round this - it is all quite technical. This article looks to me like original research - and very questionable at that. So I think I'm with User:-Ril-. However, I'm not sure that redirecting Authentic Matthew to Gospel of the Hebrews is valid either, I'm off to do a little thinking. --Doc (?) 22:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the redirect merely based on the fact that most of the content that was merged rather than deleted was merged to Gospel of the Hebrews. I have no particular preference over where it gets redirected to, and have no quarrel if it is preferred that it goes to Gospel of Matthew or other such article. ~~~~ 23:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, enough this is doing my head in,- this article (or rather essay) is making all sorts of assumptions. To cut a long and complicated story short - it is original research, POV-ridden, and very confusing. Delete - I see no need for any redirections. --Doc (?) 23:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Poorman made a minor alteration to Doc's delete vote above; I have removed the alteration. -- Hoary 04:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Doc Glasgow as POV, original research etc. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete jamesgibbon 01:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no personal use for this article (there is already too much biblical trivia), but it is mentioned in Apocrypha. Those links to this article are months old(possibly years - I could not find when it was added), so it's obviously something that more than a single contributor knows about (ergo not completely original research). If we leave ANY apocrypha, I'm sad to say this must stay. Unsinkable 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User has 32 prior edits. ~~~~ 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. the item of the apocrypha in question is alleged by the article to be the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the Nazarenes. These 3 already have articles. ~~~~ 07:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any mention of Matthew in Apocrypha, even in older versions, much less any mention of "Authentic Matthew". There are links to Hebrews etc. in New Testament apocrypha but no months-old link to Authentic Matthew, in fact none at all. Could you say more specifically which links you were verifying? My search has yielded two candidates for most (possibly all) links, or one if 202.176.97.230 and Melissadolbeer are the same. This is not at all indemnifying, of course, but I would be very interested to know if there was at least one pre-existing link. The page was created Feb. 8 of this year. Davilla 06:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orignial research. --nixie 01:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, as per Doc. Fernando Rizo 02:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My vote is partly the result of having seen the way that -Ril (talk · contribs) has behaved over this article, but mainly that there's a genuine encyclopædia topic here. The content of the article isn't the issue (that can be edited; though, for the record, I don't think that it is wholly original research); if it were, the article should have been placed at RfC, not VfD (just as -Ril-'s RfC against Melissadolbeer should not have been leapt into before any other attempt at mediation of moderation). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Melissadolbeer's behaviour with sockpuppets as described in the RFC is beyond acceptable. The article was edited. Melissadolbeer + sockpuppets reverted it back. ~~~~ 17:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record 1) I am not Melissa's sockpuppet but rather her husband. 2) Melissa has never used a sockpuppet! 3) I do know sockpuppets are legal at Wikipedia but not to vote more than once or to lie and abuse people like my wife. Over the years you have hurt many people including my wife and that is what I object to! People are more important than articles or your ego. --Poorman 08:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In wikipedia, articles are more important, this isn't about creating an collection of popular opinion, but one of noteworthy facts. ~~~~ 19:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note. If Poorman is not melissa, then why make this edit [1] where Poorman signs as Melissa? ~~~~ 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hardly a sockpuppet abuse! Indeed this when taken in context affirms they are husband and wife.--Mikefar 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I don't think it's wise to vote based on the conflict between these two. That can be resolved in mediation, as you say, unless you were to pass judgement yourself. If that's the case then it's your choice to risk making a decision that isn't fully informed. One would say of the other that Ril has a vendetta and that Melissa is taking it personally. I don't know who's right, if anyone is, but who's right shouldn't really be the point. We know we want to vote objectively. I say, vote on the objective aspects. Davilla 05:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and list on Peer Review so that original research can be weeded out. Interesting and encyclopaedic topic. I'm not sure the current title is the best though. David | Talk 11:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doc glasgow (above) has a PhD in New Testament (i.e. one of the Peers that Peer Review would involve), and says it is original research, and is a collection of scraps from other articles put together solely to push one POV. ~~~~ 16:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and discussion moved to talk page.
Delete, WP:NOR. R adiant _>|< 12:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. --TruthCrusader
Delete, pick one of the reasons listed above. --Scimitar ^parley 19:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Friday 05:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) Original research: Jerome, Parker and all the writers cited, did the original research! They have all been published. Melissa merely summed them up in an objective factual style into a good article. She does not have an original thought in her head. 2) My vote is mainly the result of having seen the way that -Ril (talk · contribs) has behaved over this article (see edit history of Ril and 81.156.177.21 --Poorman 08:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above user is a sockpuppet. ~~~~ 19:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The user has stated clearly that he is Melissadolbeer's husband. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I am not Melissa's sockpuppet but rather her husband. (2) Melissa has never used a sockpuppet! (3) She has been guilty of forgetting to log in while editing and for that matter so have I. (4) Read her work with care and you will a kind polite person who always sees the good in people. (5) What you have done has really hurt her. But I will hand you this- you are clever to have gotten away with so very much Ril! (6) Mel Etitis, does NOT have a vendetta against you!--Poorman 09:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A note. If Poorman is not melissa, then why make this edit [2] where Poorman signs as Melissa? ~~~~ 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hardly a sockpuppet abuse! Indeed this when taken in context affirms they are husband and wife.--Mikefar 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but the article needs serious amounts of editing, especially moving material to the appropriate articles and to WikiSource. -Acjelen 12:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned before, this was already done. Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets reverted it back to its original state. ~~~~ 19:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see Special:Contributions/Mikefar, indicating the desperation with which the sockpuppets are trying to defend the article. Clearly indicating it is their original research. ~~~~ 19:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Non sequitur. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Large comment about what a user thinks is "original research" (as opposed to what Wikipedia policy - WP:NOR says is "original research") moved to talk page. ~~~~ 19:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands, current article is original research and very dodgy. More importantly, the name of the article is inherently POV-ridden. I cannot imagine a way for this article to be salvaged. IT is my understanding that the small usable parts have already been incorporated elsewhere, leaving nothing left to but to delete this one. DreamGuy 19:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as original research. --Carnildo 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and {{cleanup}}. Disputes about the "additions to Matthew" etc. go back to the time of the canonization of the NT. Tomer ^TALK 19:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

And go in Gospel of Matthew, or Biblical Canon, or Gospel of the Hebrews. This article solely pushes original research. ~~~~ 16:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Josh Cherry 23:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
SEE BELOW - As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof. Melissadolbeer 07:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
further extensive comments by the above moved to talk page

USER HAS ALREADY VOTED AS A SOCKPUPPET. ~~~~ 10:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. the user votes below, and the above should not be counted as a vote by them in addition. ~~~~ 07:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The previous user has stated clearly that he is Melissadolbeer's husband. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I am definitely not -Ril- but his wife. Yeh right, like a sockpuppet's word is trustworthy. The Wife of -Ril- 16:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for jumping in here, but where is the concrete proof that said users are sock-puppets? You suspect they may be, yes, but from what I can see, there has been no point where this has been verified by admin. I've noted that every single "Keep" vote was followed up with an attempt to discount, either waving the sock-puppet flag, pointing out prior edits, or, in my case, by asking for a review of the vote on my user talk page. Might I suggest leaving the discounting of votes to those who are qualified to discount votes? That would help to cool down this debate. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article was restored by numerous extremely obvious sockpuppets after its having been merged. There has been a massive series of postings to User talk pages by sockpuppets to try to get the article preserved. This seems to have happened also a prior time that the article was merged by someone else. The sockpuppets have even opened up an RFAR (WP:RFAR) claiming that everyone who has voted delete here is a sockpuppet of me. The likelyhood that sockpuppets will be voting here is extremely high, and their contribution history makes it extremely obvious. ~~~~ 22:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to an appropriate sister project, or Keep. Article is noteworthy enough in my opinion. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked for a review of my vote, to determine whether I feel that the article as it stands deserves existance. I do feel that the article does deserve existance as it stands, although I also feel it may be better suited for one of Wikipedia's sister projects, as I'm not entirely convinced it is strictly encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider Merge, Transwiki and redirect as and where appropriate. Rich Farmbrough 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof. --Melissadolbeer 03:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above has already voted as a sockpuppet.~~~~ 07:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE See talk. Davilla 05:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
extensive comments moved to talk page ~~~~ 07:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
extensive comments moved to talk page again. Please read talk page for discussion. ~~~~ 11:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I agree with David about listing on Peer Review and trying to find a better title. JamesMLane 09:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doc glasgow (above) has a PhD in New Testament (i.e. one of the Peers that Peer Review would involve), and says it is original research, and is a collection of scraps from other articles put together solely to push one POV. ~~~~ 16:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ril, stop deleting everything that shows you as being in the wrong. Both sides have right to be heard.--Mikefar 00:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)*extensive comments moved to talk page - available here ~~~~ 16:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote , as Ril has kept this vote from

being a fair one! No one can be heard from but Ril.--Mikefar 22:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep it short, or move it to the talk page. It is not being deleted, just moved to talk. The talk page is there explicitely for extensive discussion. This is not the place for a huge essay.~~~~ 16:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it equal! Every time Melissa tries to reply to a Ril comment, you delete it!--Mikefar 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THE ABOVE USER IS A SOCKPUPPET OF A USER WHO HAS ALREADY VOTED. SOCKPUPPETRY ADMITTED AT WP:RFAR ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

extensive comment moved to talk. It is available here ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Melissa + Sockpuppets please note: VFD procedure does not permit a "response to VFD" section preceeding the vote. If you wish to respond do it briefly, and against your vote, or if you have a more extensive comment, put it on the talk page, and link to it from here ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a temporary history-only undelete may be later requested by the arbitration committee if they open the case Melissadolbeer requested. This does not affect the voting, which concerns the long-term status of the article. ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CommentRil,you have a lot of comments on this page. Then you delete any and all replies. People who vote only read your side of the story without reading the other side. This has totally skewed the vote, for, as the record shows, virtually all the votes to delete have come after you have removed material that goes against you. I respect your right to put your comments on this page. Please respect other people's rights. You know as well as we do, if all your views are on this page and everything else is on the talk page, there is not a fair vote.--Mikefar 10:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

THE ABOVE USER IS A SOCKPUPPET OF A USER WHO HAS ALREADY VOTED. SOCKPUPPETRY ADMITTED AT WP:RFAR ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

extensive comment moved to talk. It is available here ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Melissa + Sockpuppets please note: VFD procedure does not permit a "response to VFD" section preceeding the vote. If you wish to respond do it briefly, and against your vote, or if you have a more extensive comment, put it on the talk page, and link to it from here ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a temporary history-only undelete may be later requested by the arbitration committee if they open the case Melissadolbeer requested. This does not affect the voting, which concerns the long-term status of the article. ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grue 22:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Ril, I will not bullied by you or your Sockpuppets. Most of the above vote will be gone when when the TRUTH comes out! (If it come out-you are good at being bad)--Mikefar 00:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*No vote If Jerome is considered a published work, then Keep. However if there is a wiki limitation period for old works then delete.--Ejhardy

Final Comments Ril's VfD accuses Melissa Dolbeer of: a) sock-puppet abuse and lying; b) original research.

I, --Melissadolbeer 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC) state[reply]

a) I have never used a sock-puppet, and Poorman is my husband. I am willing to provide Wiki administrators with full documentation to prove my innocence via snail mail. (Also, Poorman has agreed to joint web cam interviews or a conference telephone call.)

b) the sources I have used are all published works which are still in print -- Jerome, etc., etc.

One month cooling off period

As my mother-in-law has been in a life-threatening car accident, I request an adjournment of the arbitration proceedings for one month, as neither Poorman nor myself will be available for the next couple of weeks.I further request that Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) not be one of the administrators involved with this, due to her special relationship with Ril. --Melissadolbeer 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I hope nothing but the best for your mother-in-law/mother, and fully support adjournment of any arbitration (none of which is presently extant) for such a reason, I would like to ask (i.e., demand) that any conflict of interest discussion of arbitrators be left to any relevant RfAr discussion. As yet, I have not seen any indication as to why Theresa should be excluded from voting in an RfAr between you/se and -Ril-, but should such evidence be presented in the proper forum, I would expect Theresa to recuse herself, without prejudice, from voting. In light of that, if you're attempting to cast Theresa in a negative light here, you'll receive no kudos (although the same cannot be said for your negative characterizations of -Ril-, who seems to have something of a vandetta against you, for whatever reason, which I expect to be explained COHERENTLY and WITH COMPLETE CITATIONS HERE as soon as he makes it back to this page. Tomer ^TALK 08:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

VFP Abuse of Process

This article may not be deleted due to its having to be added as evidence to a case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

Alternative approach to same concept

I was personally considering proposing to remove the VfD tag on this article, as well as proposing a one-month editing ban on both User:-Ril- and the various editors whom -Ril- claims are sockpuppets of whomever. This article is clearly at the core of a much bigger argument between at least two editors, and as such, their relationship needs to be worked out before anything constructive can EVER take place wrt this article. Meanwhile, I think going forward with a vote on whether to keep or discard this article will negatively/positively reflect on n/either party in what is clearly a conflict of much greater scope. I move to suspend this vote until such time as the relevant RfAr is resolved. (Without prejudice, I also vote to take both parties, but especially -Ril-, out behind the woodshed for a sound spanking. This entire mishegas is utterly unseemly, and does nothing but serve the best interests of those who hold the entire WP project in disdain.) Tomer ^TALK 08:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment and suggestion to closing admin. This debate has resulted in more heat than light. However, it does actually matter, since references to 'Authentic Matthew' have been inserted into other, more important Biblical Studies articles, giving it an unmerited prominence (and IMHO distorting WP's presentation of the discipline). I have some knowledge in the field - and I had intended to set down my thoughts for others, but I withdrew rather than poke a stick in a hornet's nest of sockpuppetry, accusations, flaming, and trolling (by whom I leave for others to judge). A proper informed debate on the article does need to happen and reach a resolution - 'freezing' it for long, whilst it might (??) cool individuals, does Wikipedia content no favours! I'd suggest that this current nomination be terminated (quickly) and another begun (soon), in which -Ril- on one hand and Mellisodobeer (and associates) on the other are each invited to make a statement then withdraw (on that basis I'd chip in my bit too) - and then some disinterested party (not -Ril-) monitor the debate. --Doc (?) 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sanest and sagest suggestion rendered to date (including my own several "contributions" even). The POV-warriors who have brought this finally to VfD should be permitted to say their piece and then SIT DOWN AND LET EVERYONE ELSE SPEAK. Tomer ^TALK 09:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted until we find out who is in the wrong. ALSO NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING BAD ABOUT Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) EXCEPT THAT SHE HAS HELPED RIL IN THE PAST. --Jlchan 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFP Abuse of Process

This article may not be deleted due to its having to be added as evidence to a case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.

@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 A proper informed debate on the article does need to happen and reach a resolution - 'freezing' it for long, whilst it might (??) cool individuals, does Wikipedia content no favours! I'd suggest that this current nomination be '''terminated''' (quickly) and another begun (soon), in which -Ril- on one hand and Mellisodobeer (and associates) on the other are each invited to make a statement then withdraw (on that basis I'd chip in my bit too) - and then some disinterested party (not -Ril-) monitor the debate. --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|(?)]] 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 :This is the sanest and sagest suggestion rendered to date (including my own several "contributions" even).  The POV-warriors who have brought this finally to VfD should be permitted to say their piece and then SIT DOWN AND LET EVERYONE ELSE SPEAK.  [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] <sup><font size=-1 color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font></sup> 09:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
+This article should not be deleted until we find out who is in the wrong. ALSO NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING BAD ABOUT '''Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)''' EXCEPT THAT SHE HAS HELPED RIL IN THE PAST. --[[User:Jlchan|Jlchan]] 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
+'''VFP Abuse of Process'''
+'''''This article may not be deleted due to its having to be added as evidence to a case at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration]]'''''.
+===Alternative approach to same concept===