Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Livnot U'Lehibanot

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Livnot U'Lehibanot

Livnot U'Lehibanot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails to establish notability. Additionally, the creating editor's username suggests personal involvement. Adrian M. H. 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete this vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 10:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability includes the fact that it is the longest running volunteer program in Israel, providing unique services to the country. Additionally, the 2007 Jewish Book of the Year was written about Livnot and its programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.229.123 (talk • contribs)
  • KeepIt is a well known and important organization in the Jewish world.
  • Comment - The previous unsigned comment was left by 70.107.229.123, whose only article contributions have been to Livnot U'Lehibanot. In response to the above comment: prove it. Adrian M. H. 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 70.107.229.123 cast two !votes, struck out second. Caknuck 19:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepHi - I have contributed to Wiki articles before but always anonymously. I think article deletion in this case is probably an extreme response. Livnot is indeed a very well known organization in the Jewish world and while the first couple of iterations of this article were kind of lacking, and the author is clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards, I think we ought to give this page a chance to grow and evolve. --Jewlicious 07:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It can grow and evolve off-line and be uploaded to Wikipedia if or when it is ready. If being new to Wikipedia was a valid excuse for failing to demonstrate notability, we would have to leave a huge quantity of poor articles in place while we wait, probably indefinitely, for someone to do what should have been done right at the start. Notability and the proving thereof does not have an opt-out clause. Adrian M. H. 14:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Adrian, you're totally right. And while I know that the original authors of this article probably have every intention of living up to Wikipedia standards, such knowledge cannot simply be assumed. So I took the liberty of cleaning up some of the text, getting rid of grammatical errors and deleting claims that may be considered boastful and cannot be substantiated. I also added in references from 3 articles about the organization which ought to go a long way to showing notability. I will add more as I find them. --Jewlicious 13:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Yes, I saw that. Good work. Now that third-party refs have been proven to be available, and another contributor is working on it, the two issues that I outlined in my nomination no longer apply. So, with that in mind, I would be happy to see it remain. If only the original contributor could either have done that right from the start or responded properly by improving it. Adrian M. H. 13:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Presumably you looked for such sources before you listed this for AfD Adrian? You didn't just list it for deletion without doing any research on the topic? A google search for Livnot U'Lehibanot gets 11,500 hits. Nick mallory 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I looked. It didn't produce anything that was obviously independent. I can't speak for Google - that's your choice. Besides, it's not my job to source the article, so don't get like that. That's primarily the responsibility of the article's creator. Adrian M. H. 13:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, now that it has multiple reliable sources to support assertion of notability. DMacks 14:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article as it currently exists makes explicit claims of notability, supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 14:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It has multiple independent sources and certain notability. Elfin341 16:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have to agree with Adrian. The original author ought to have written a better article, one more in keeping with Wikipedia standards. That having been said, it seems to me that thanks to the efforts of several contributors, the article is much better and ought to remain. --Jewlicious 19:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a possible WP:COI issue here but that alone is not grounds for deletion, just caution. The Jerusalem Post is a non-trivial source as is the Blueprint. In my mind, WP:NOTE is firmly met. JodyB talk 00:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I made what I think are significant edits to the entry. I am familiar with the organization but I am not affiliated with them in any way. My subsequent edits of the original article as well as my inclusion of relevant non-trivial sources ought to quell any concerns related to WP:COI. I would further urge anyone familiar with the organization to ad historical information or other articles - with over 11,000 Google search results for Livnot, there ought to be more information that can be added in. --Jewlicious 02:15, 10 May 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.