Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorshei Derekh

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 no consensus, so keep. Bduke (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dorshei Derekh

Dorshei Derekh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Well developed and written article does not establish notability. It seems unlikely that further development will be able to remedy this. ike9898 (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Found an article discussing the emergence of this group and one discussing their position on something religious I don't understand which appear to demonstrate notability. Both are in the "Jewish Exponent". What is the reliability of this source? Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Exponent seems like a legitimate source, although possibly too closely tied to Dorshei Derekh. ike9898 (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. There do seem to be reliable sources that discuss the subject, although they are few in number; still, two sources is enough to pass N. I'd say trim it to the extent that available sourcing allows and keep an eye out for anything else that we can use. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG because coverage isn't substantial. A better idea would be to merge into an article about Judaism in Philidelphia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment How do you know the coverage isn't substantial? One article appears to be entirely about the group. Because they are pay-to-view I haven't been able to view the full articles, but an article focused on the group seems substantial to me. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2008 (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.