Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hashivenu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. I see two options here: delete as not notable or verifiable, or merge per DGG. I pick delete because the article as constituted is unsourced and promotional junk and merging this is not helpful to our encyclopedic goals. Ppl should add a sourced mention to the parent article if they care to do so. -- Y not? 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hashivenu

Hashivenu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced unnoteable organazation fails WP:ORG. Yeshivish 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yeshivish 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Yeshivish 07:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep They r indeed very Notable, they are active and they have a following, check on Google search results they appear noted in more then just a few web sites, and thus Notable to include them into a neutral encyclopedia, this deletion was posted to the Jewish portal so that's why u have such an unporportional support for deletion, this vote does not represent the wikipedia community on balance, and i ask the sysops to refrain from acting here just by majority rule.--יודל 12:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete needs more than existence to have an article - and I am not even sure of it exists. Jon513 13:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete falls far short of notability GDonato (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:V. -- But|seriously|folks  17:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Chesdovi 17:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Why can you create a zillion articles on Synagoges, but yet you jump on one article on a think tank. I see double standard blaring all over the place.Johnpacklambert 04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the few synagogue articles I have created are notable. There are ‘’zillion’s’’ of synagogues in Greater London, (where I live), which are not notable and therefore no article exists on each of them. I do not spend all my time sifting through AFD’s and casting votes, but the ones with a Judaism connection and which are listed on the Jewish topic deletion board, I sometimes feel inclined to vote on. There are no double standards here, just paranoia! Chesdovi 12:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with its parent organisation, Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations I'm a little surprised none of the others suggested that. The merge seems so obvious that it should have been done outside of AfD. DGG (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per DGG. Not enough evidence to support notability for an independent article. Johnbod 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others. IZAK 13:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - at least provisionally. The organization is prominently mentioned in at least a few independent websites, with whole pages devoted to discussing them. However, the existing articles for both it and its parent are not overly impressive, and at this point they could easily be merged. I would retain the option of dividing the merged article later, should length and additional independent sources and content be added. John Carter 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom--Miamite 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per DGG. However, I am not surprised to see some of the editors who come out in support of deleting a Messianic Judaism article. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per User:Bsf Yossiea (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per DGG Avi 20:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per DGG. On its own, it may not meet notability criteria, and should not have its own article. If it meets notability, someone needs to give some decent secondary sources. The.helping.people.tick 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per DGG. Personally I wouldn't have expected that the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations would have an article, and I suspect that's why no one suggested this earlier.--P4k 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Probably the only time I don't vote to outright keep an MJ article. Jewish editors take note, hell must have frozen over! Contary to the AfD reasoning, the information in this article is valid, and notable, but I believe it would better fit as a subsection in the UMJC article for now until more detail and notability can be found to warrant an exclusive article apart from the UMJC article. inigmatus 22:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per DGG and inigmatus. Jamie Guinn 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the organization operates independently of its parent organization. I highly suspect the delete votes, because they all seem to be by people highly invested in articles on Judaism. Messianic Judaism undercuts the lie that most Jewish conversion to Christianity is forced, and so main stream Jews want knowledge of it suppressed. If they had their way there would be no article on Messianic Judaism in wikipedia.Johnpacklambert 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What?! Nowadays is any conversion to Christianity forced? I hope not – that would be a bad thing. The days of the Auto de fe are long gone, and we don’t have Jesus to thank for that. These days, the phoney impostors with their art of persuasion is what we have to watch out for. Chesdovi 12:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into parent organization per DGG. --MPerel 06:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The organization has held various forms and has work from various authors. They may be small, but they are real and simply a group of believers in God trying to spread a message of hope.IndependentConservative 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per DGG. Smokizzy (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, little more than a website. Will support merge if no consensus for delete. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable organisation. Keb25 01:08, 8 September 2007 (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.