Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shefa Network

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 of the debate was delete after ignoring new users. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shefa Network

Not Notable, 89 google hits for "Shefa Network" with many of the links being for a different organization. [1] PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading to use bad Google searches to deny that a subject has many webpages on Google. The following accurate Google search shows thousands of hits for the Shefa group connected with Conservative Judaism. Check it out yourself. (Obviously most of these may not be a valid hit, but that is of course true for all Google searches. Do not apply a criteria to this one article alone that is applied to no other article! ) Look, I have no problem with people saying "Delete because it isn't notable", but then I do insist that this policy be applied to all groups, and not to this group alone. [2] RK

Doing a modified search to remove the occurence of the word shefa not related to this organization leads to fare fewer results [3] just "SHERI SHEFA" was 95% of your results and she is a writer for the Canadian Jewish News. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true that "many" links are for a different organization: when I Google "Shefa Network" only 1 out of the top 31 is for any other group. (And before someone points it out, yes, this is among my first edits--we all have to start somewhere!--but hardly my first use of Wikipedia; I look forward to learning...)--BeccaB 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

BeccaB, When you do your search only the 89 links show up mainly duplicates (See comment by Fan1967 below), which proves my point that it is not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Bad faith deletion of new article on Shefa

Huh? Why are people trying to delete an article on a very real group? The claim made on the Shefa Network page is false. The Shefa Network is a real group within Conservative Judaism, and in fact is already larger than many organizations that Wikipedia already has many articles on. The Shefa Network already has:

• Several hundred members
• A journal
• An official website and e-mail listserv
• They have sponsored two major conferences
• More activities are planned for the immediate future (Shefa Israel Mission over the Winter break this coming year, and tentative plans for a high profile musical event)
• The development of two new websites designed to be part of a unified gateway into Conservative Judaism.

Sadly, the two people attempting to delete this entry refuse to even discuss the issue on the article discussion page. They have made no attempt to even research the issue. Note the timestamps; they tried to delete the article within minutes of its creation. Attempting to delete a page without even trying to ascertain the facts is against Wikipedia policy.

If someone somehow still doubts that this organization exists, I can arrange for an interview with its founder, or its journal editor, webmaster, and members of this organization who have been to Shefa's academic conferences. RK 14:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Promotional, nonencylopedic article written in the first person by someone obviously extremely involved in the group. This individual is obviously unaware of Wikipedia's editorial policy, and has been extremely confrontational, defensive, and combative. He or she is also obviously puffing the importance and notability of the group and its "academic journal." If it is in fact notable, it should be rewritten from scratch, probably by someone not as emotionally invested in the organization. NTK 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

NTK is saying untruths. No one here has made any statements about the importance of Shefa;s journal. He has simply made a string of ad homenim and false attacks, none of which have anything to do with the actual article. He is trying to delete the article because he dislikes me, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. RK

• Strong Strong Keep. The article does require more work in order to assert the notability of the organisation and would benefit from additional references. Conservative Judaism is a large movement worldwide. Any sub-group that has been in existence since 2004 in a global, Jewish movement is itself notable. Some that have existed for a shorter time are notable anyway. I'm concerned that the AfD nomination came so quickly after the article was ceated. Generally that implies bad faith to me. There is enough notability about this organisatiomn to warrant an article. This article is notable as an article, but I re-emphasise that it requires further work. However, it is only a couple of hours old. Don't we normally give peole time to create serious articles? Fiddle Faddle 15:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have diluted my vote from "strong". The creator seems to be content with it the way it is. I view it as requiring expansion Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reinstated "strong". There is work being done on the article to prove it is notable. Ravnet discussions are not easily accessible, and regrettably one will have to take those for granted (I was gooing to say "As gospel, and only just restrained myself). The involvement of JTS personnel is in itself notable. Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle came in after RK canvassed six users and a Wikiproject page complaining of persecution. A rapid nomination for deletion is hardly bad faith when the article is of such low quality, obvious bias and exaggerations, and given the author's past history. It did not take me more than a few minutes to find that this "group" is nonexistent on the web and that its "journal" is not present in major university libraries. 20K website hits goes more to show obscurity than to show notability. NTK 15:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's kind of you to wave some sort of accusation at me. However the fact that I came here after I had my attention drawn to the article has no bearing on my views. I see nothing wrong with RK's drawing my attention to the article. I had no need to take any action - I could have ignored his note entirely. I am sure he felt I might be interested. I was. And I have placed my thoughts here. I have also placed thoughts in the article's talk page. I looked at the author's past history. A 12 month thing in April 2005 expired, surely? So raking that up now seems to me to be rhetoric. Please stick to the article, not the personalities. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I accused you of nothing, I only pointed out the fact that you were canvassed—you on the other hand accused me of bad faith. And yes, it is considered problematic for users to spam talk pages in order to "save" their articles from deletion. I personally avoid voting on nominations I have found out through canvassing, especially when it is the author or the nominator who is canvassing. As to the parole issue, you will note that 12-month period is reset every time it is violated, and in any event personal attacks are never permissible. ArbCom rulings are hardly irrelevant, especially given that this user has previously been banned from editing Judaism-related articles for an entire year. To ignore that would be to make ArbCom toothless, and ArbCom is the one tool, if sometimes ineffectual, to protect WP from persistently abusive editors. NTK 15:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nonetheless, whatever route I came here by, my opinion is my opinion. The matter in hand is the article. Please stick to discussing that. It is not rhetoric that keeps or deletes articles. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, however the whole purpose of AfD is to determine the consensus of Wikipedia editors. When an editor attempts to subvert this process by canvassing "votes" from people he believes to be sympathetic, these opinions must be taken in that context. I was not attacking you, I was providing that context. NTK 16:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with you. "providing context" means stating that "Several people have been cavassed for their opinions. It does not means stating "this perosn came here becuase he was canvassed" As you will also see the cancassing has drawn at least one "delete" opinion. These things tend to work out in the end and the correct consensus is reached. It doesn't matter whetehr we agree with the consensus. What matters is that the article is viewed on its merits and only on those. This discussion was moved to the talk page. It wouls be far more useful to keep it there. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• KeepDelete. Organization too new (4 months?), Links/Refs are still too weak (though I myself added one) and name is too confusing. Notable enough per links, reasonably NPOV. The main problem is the name - Google finds at least 2 other 'Shefa Networks', one for Moslem hospitals, one for Jewish hospitals, and other similar apparently unrelated organizations. I would definitely encourage a name change, DAB can only do so much, and only for WP proper. Crum375 15:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

CommentOn name: should not be a problem, since those other organizations are not called the "Shefa Network" (1st=Shefa Healthcare Fund 2nd=Shefa Fund--Jewish social justice, not hospitals, and being phased out of independent existence to become part of Jewish Funds for Justice--BeccaB 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I carefully searched for the term 'network' also, and both other organizations use it. The Moslem UAE based Hospital fund one specifically uses the term "Shefa Network" in the article I cited above, and the Jewish charity fund uses "Shefa's Jewish Shareholder Engagement Network". I think part of notability is distinguishability, which is rather weak here. Crum375 02:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If distinguishability is the issue, surely a disambiguation page will take care of that. I don't think we've had serious distinguishability issue before that have not been simple to resolve inthis manner. Fiddle Faddle 07:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean distinguishability within WP - then DAB will take care of it. My point is that in this case of a newly formed organization of marginal notability, confusion with a name that is used by others with somewhat similar missions (religion related charity organizations), and some from fairly different religions like Islam and Judaism, does not help the case for establishing notability of this specific entry. Crum375 12:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -- Nesher 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Per what norma? I can't even follow your train of logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RK (talk • contribs)

• Delete as per nom. This organization is simply not notable enough yet - it gets 0 (zero) hits for "Shefa Network" or "Shefa" in a multi-decade Factiva database search of US and world local, national and international newspapers, magazines, press releases and presswires. Conservative Judaism is of course a major religious movement, but it is not logical to say that every subgroup or local activist chapter within it is automatically of encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 16:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

False. What you write above 'is not a factor in deciding whether or not Wikipedia articles should exist or not, even for religious groups. Are you just making this up? Also, you know full well that many other articles on religious groups and even individuals exist here on Wikipedia, yet you apply this non-existent standard to this one group only. That is voting for deletion in bad faith. RK

Um... wild accusations will get you nowhere. No, I am not making this up nor am I doing it in bad faith. I'm sure your organization knows people at universities. All or most US universities will have Factiva or something similar so your contacts can confirm my result. In fact, someone below ran a LexisNexis search and got a similar result. Notability is part of the standard Wikipedia afd nomination discussion. Wikipedia is a not a web directory or a free noticeboard for any organization. See my comment below too that a higher bar of entry should apply for societies of the more prominent faiths in developed countries, especially the US. Bwithh 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per NTK. Beyond the notability issue, Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promoting an organziation or a point of view. Thanks to RK for bringing this to my attention by spamming people's talk pages, by the way. :) · rodii · 16:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Very limited exposure (I get 27 unique Ghits) says that this organization has not achieved notability yet. Wikipedia is not to promote little-known organizations, no matter how noble their purpose. Fan1967 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, you used the wrong Google search! Secondly, in the real world most inter-organizational work is done "in the real world", i.e. not on the internet. The proceedings of the two Shefa conferences are simply not on the internet. We may not use Google searches as a reason to delete articles; that simply means we are too lazy to actually do any real research! In any case, why refuse the offer for an interview? RK

• Delete per nom.TheRingess 17:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Searched a few lexus nexus DBs and worldcat. Nothing. If I also assume what Bwithh said is true, there's little in the way of group-type notability for this organization/movement. Note that there is a health care group that uses the name shefa, as well as a Shefa Institute for Adv. Studies in Judaism, but it was publishing a journal around 1980, not 2004. Kevin_b_er 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis of notability alone. This is not a disparagement of the group nor its activities, simply that it is not noteworthy enough for an inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ifnord 17:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least pending further evidence. We should be careful to maintain consistent notability criteria across ideological lines to avoid potential for ideological bias. Wikipedia has numerous entries for individual synagogues and small institutions which arguably have modest external notabibility (Lithuanian School of Kabbalah The organization claims to have the support of major Conservative figures. The article could use some work -- I can't quite tell whether its purpose is to move CJ in a particular ideological direction, improve its 'marketing', or improve ruach. If the article is deleted, perhaps its content could be moved into a section on Conservative responses to recent concerns, e.g. internal disputes and demographic contraction. --Shirahadasha 17:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment If the movement this organization belonged to was more obscure, I'd agree with your comment. However, it belongs to a major, internationally prominent religious movement and is based in one of the most densely populated areas of a country which dominates global media and has a strong local press tradition which is better covered by internet/library/database sources than any other country. And it still scores zero on a news and magazine database run. Bwithh 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - does this "grass-roots movement" do anything? Having a website and even a few conferences does not make it notable. Trying to influence the Conservative movement's thought process is only notable if it has already had influence - not if it hopes to (someday). I do not see it as bad faith to nominate the article soon after its creation, as the article itself does not assert notability. Jon513 18:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? This organization has already done more than many other groups that Wikipedia already has articles on. Why are you insisting on a standard that no other article is being held up to? And I note that you refused my offer to have an interview with the members. Why do you refuse? Just apply the same standard to all groups, ok? RK

• Keep - I have no involvement with the group, and this is the first I've heard of it. But the named members count more than a tiny cabal; they play an active and prominent role within Conservative Judaism, and they should get the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to comment on the bad faith accusation, but this does seem like a knee-jerk nomination. --Leifern 20:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per notability guidelines. --Coredesat 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable. User:Angr 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Angr, you cannot make things up, and then state them as if they are facts. Did you actually ask anyone on the Conservative movement's Committee on Jewish an d Standards, or someone from the Rabbinical Assembly? If not, then aren't you simply making things up? You can't delete articles based on one's made up beliefs. Are you saying that you still refuse to take up the offer of an interview? RK

• Delete it may have potential, but at current it appears way NN. - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a real organization of significance. I attended the conference in NYC and it had serious content and attended by many rabbis and committed lay people. Rabjeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabjeff (talk • contribs)

This is this user's first edit. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is a real organization of significance. It includes many young and future leaders of the Conservative movement including rabbis, cantors, lay people, and educators. Many of the people in this organization spend their entire career promoting and teaching about Conservative Judaism. Yes, it is a young organization, but a growing one which is having an impact on the movement. The conference in NYC had outstanding speakers including 2 members of the JTS faculty. Davidr 07:21 26 June 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.136.27 (talk • contribs)

This is this user's first edit. Crum375 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Shefa, founded by a working Rabbi, generates 10+ mass emails a day to its subscribers...FROM its subscribers. It truly is a grass-roots organization, recongnized by both the outgoing and incoming chancellors from the JTS as well as the leadership of the Rabbinical Assembly. This is not a tiny regional group. Many read the digests of the conversations online and as such don't show up in some statistics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParrotSquawk (talk • contribs)

This is the user's first edit. --Coredesat talk 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible KEEP per NTK, PinchasC and ParrotSquawk. More in-depth explanations available upon non-trollish request. Judge of who is/n't a troll, Tomer^talk 05:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh... how passive aggressive. sheesh. Bwithh 01:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please keep I am a member of this organization which is one of the most refreshing organizations in the Jewish world. 131.229.207.147 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)ravbruce@gmail.com

• 'Refreshing' is not a WP inclusion criterion. Reliably sourced proof of notability is. If you really want this entry included, please supply such proof, not pleadings or irrelevant comments. Crum375 14:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Delete. The group is pretty marginal; there don't seem to be many reliable third-party sources on it. It might one day become notable, but right now it appears to mostly be a website, blog, and discussion board. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Changed to delete, I still can't see any evidence of real notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Question. The Shefa Network was the subject of an article in The New York Jewish Week on 3/31/06. Do Factiva and/or Lexis-Nexis searches capture ethnic/religious press? Is mention in the secular press the standard for notability? jshawnl 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because although Conservative Judaism is a big movement, this group is not and therefore wikipedia can not have articles on every single group of people that decide to form a group. It should be started as part of the Conservative Judaism article and if it becomes important which only time will tell if they will, then they should have their own article. DY1963 22:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. There are certainly enough people who have heard of Shefa Network, or might stumble across it, or a reference to it in the print media or on another web site, that it would be a public benefit to information on the organization on Wikipedia. I suspect most of those arguing to delete the entry are coming from a place of opposition to the organizations religious views. Reb Barry 75.13.41.137 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This is this user's only edit. Crum375 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment to 'Reb Barry':

You have several mistakes in your statement.

1. WP inclusion criteria are strictly reliably sourced notability.

Your claim is disingenuous. We have offered to give you the most reliable sources possible; actual interviews with the organizers. The refusal of you and other editors to even look at such sources proves that you are not following Wikipedia protocol. RK

I will assume that you are new to WP and are not aware that we are supposed to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks, because labeling my statement above, where I am simply stating WP's policy, as 'disingenuous' is illogical. As I have stated elsewhere on this page, if you have a reliable source that proves notability of this organization, please let us have it here. If you suspect that I have some kind of hidden agenda, please check the article's history and see who supplied this link. All I want, as do all true wikipedian editors, is to determine if there is reliable evidence of notability for this organization. Please supply your proof right below my signature if you have a good reference or link to it. Thanks, Crum375 02:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

1. The possible use of entries to help someone looking for information is incidental, not a primary criterion for inclusion.
2. Your allegation that most 'delete' proponents are opponents to the organization's religious views is casting suspicion on other editors's motivation which is contrary to assume good faith and can be viewed as un-civil behavior.

Thanks, Crum375 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I already have been told to my face by a couple of people on this page that they are trying to delete this article because they do not like me, as a person. That is uncivil behavior, but I see that you have no problem with that? For shame. RK

My teachers and parents told me long ago that two wrongs don't make a right. Please see my comments below. Crum375 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I find it difficult to argue for either keeping or deleting, using the "high-school" test for notability: Vanity edits are not notable, but individual high schools are notable to some populations: their students and teachers (and perhaps people in the vicinity). I simply don't know enough about Shefa Network online to know whether this article was a vanity article promoting someone's small operation or an article giving information about a phenomenon people would be interested in as third parties. If Shefa Network wants itself known on Wikipedia, try to do some groundwork on the Internet and publicizing the Shefa Network first. (I had a few qualms about the notability of Judeo-Paganism after starting that article, but I had seen more than one website about it (although many of the sites that I've found recently were copies sporked off of the Wikipedia article; "Jewish Pagan" seems to get more unique results than other items, but such item on Google could refer to a list including Jewish people and Pagan people), I had also noticed that people had linked to it and sporked it to pagan-oriented online encyclopediae, and I notice now that there have been newspaper articles about Judeo-Paganism - and thus I have little difficulty in concluding that Judeo-Paganism is notable. I don't quite see the same amount of notability in the Shefa Network - make yourself heard more, then you'd get noticed and become notable.) — Rickyrab | Talk 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Reasons to keep this article

I have repeatedly offered to set up interviews between Wikipedia editors and people at the Shefa Network. Tellingly, not a single person trying to delete the article has accepted this offer. They also refuse to read the sources that were given. Why? It is especialy bizarre that while people who know nothing about this group are trying to delete its article, members of all of Conservative Judaism's organizations are now working with Shefa. At this point it is no longer a matter of personal opinion. It is a now a fact that:

• Members of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards are contributors to Shefa
• Members of the faculty at the movement's rabbinic seminary (Jewish Theological Seminary of America) are contributors.
• A growing number of rabbis from the Rabbinical Assembly are contributors
• Faculty from Conservative Judaism's Solomon Schechter schools are working with Shefa.
• Shefa Newtork has already held two conferences, and two more events are already being planned, as well as yet another journal.
• At this very moment people from the Rabbinical Assembly are preparing for a tele-conference with multiple people from Shefa about the new Shefa websites, and coordinating with the new Conservative Judaism websites.

It seems that zero of the people trying to delete this article were aware of any of these facts. Since they now know these facts, one would imagine that they would change their mind. Let's note that the Shefa Network is more influential than dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other groups that currently have articles on Wikipedia.

Note that the history of the delete attempt is even more telling: A handful of people started an attempt to delete this article within minutes of its creation. They are not applying that normal Wikipedia standards that we apply to all of our other articles. Worse, they refuse to even obtain any facts, sources, or talk to the many people involved. Isn't it obvious that some people are trying to delete this article despite its merits for inclusion? RK 14:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

RK, I think you may have some misunderstanding regarding WP, on several fronts. First, you seem to be trying to cast suspicion on other contributors. It doesn't in the least matter if your suspicions are 'well founded' or not. The WP policy is that we accept good faith, as long as we want to be civil and to edit here, and that means we must not cast suspicions or worse, attack the integrity or judgment of others. And let me say that the speed of the PROD or AfD's appearance is not an issue - lots of new articles come up for deletion as soon as they are born. The motivation for the deletion nomination of such articles is immaterial - only the facts relative to WP inclusion policy matter. Assuming you want to push for inclusion of this article, which is a legitimate aspiration, you should move away from attacking others (again regardless of the merits), and focus instead on the WP criteria for inclusion. Now you raise some points above that to you seem like they 'justify' inclusion. But again you are off target. WP is not an institution that 'interviews' potential inclusion candidates. WP is an encyclopedia, that bases inclusion criteria on published reliable notability of the article subjects. Either there is reliably sourced notability or not. Being 'influential' or 'important' is not a WP criterion - being proven notable per reliable sources is. So what you should do, is look for verifiable reliable neutral published sources that prove that the article is notable. Thanks, Crum375 14:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would add to that. Despite believing that notability is proven, I see no real attempt to enhance this article to prove that notability beyond the slightest doubt. Knowing that somethng is notable is not the same as proving it. I understand RK's belief that the deletion attempt was remarkably fast, and that it might be sectarian inspired and I can see how assuming good faith is hard in view of what could easily be viewed as "aggressive edits" to place what seems to me to be a disproportionately great number of banners at the head of the article by the same editor. However, the banners are designed to be helpful. And it woudl behove knowledgable editors to edit the article to enance it, thus seeking to guarantee its place here. The energy spent on rehetoric woudl be better spent on research, and assertion of notability. Wikipedia os not an exercise in oratory. It is an exercise in researching and citing facts. Fiddle Faddle 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Given what's been said, I don't see the harm in allowing the article to remain and be improved (I'm just a newbie, but I'd like to learn what I can & work on various Wiki articles, including this one: already fixed a few minor inaccuracies). And given that notability "is not an actual policy or guideline" and that understandings of what would prove this group "notable" or not vary, I hope that the article will not be deleted. Since Wiki is not paper, there's plenty of room; the Shefa Network article is not cluttering the Conservative Judaism category, for which there are only 16 pages--there are 36 for the category of Orthodox Judaism, including organizations like Shema Yisrael Torah Network, where the objections that have been raised here would also be relevant--I certainly have no objection to articles on both! --BeccaB 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Note this is this editor's 7th edit with 5 of them being on this page. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete After looking at the article I see various issues with it including:
  • Massively undersourced
  • No real attempt to establish notability
  • Reads like a propaganda piece
  • Not wikified

Most of these are peripheral but the lack of establishment of notability for inclusion and the fact that it reads like a prop piece for the group are what sways me, if this article is cleaned up though I'd be more than willing to revisit this and I may try to do some cleanup myself later if I get a chance. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 21:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per RK. 172 | Talk 01:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see RK's vote above? I do see lots of comments by him, but not an actual vote by him. Also, he has yet to respond for my request for proof of reliably sourced notability. Crum375 02:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one has to accept that RK feels his vote has been cast, and as a strong keep. I would far rather he had devoted his energies to improving the article than to the rhetoric he has used here and elsewhere, and to replying to you (and, indeed, to me), but it is "clear" that he probably feels his oratory is equivalent to a strong keep. Fiddle Faddle 09:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have just spent some time tidying some aspects of this article. I have cited references to the items on the Shefa Network which appear in the media, and have also made the link to the new (and by no means yet notable) conservative judaism website. While that site is not yet notable it is also very new. While my opinion is alredy clearly stated that I already believe this article asserts sufficient notability, I feel these edits remove some other people's arguments against notability, though I appreciate that others will hold a different view. I believe we must apply a uniform yardstick to notability. I feel sufficient work has been done already, but do not dispute that more work can be done. Fiddle Faddle 11:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - it seems to me that the main argument against this article is that the organization is considered non-notable. But since Wikipedia isn't paper, and articles like this don't take away space or attention, even the most ardent deletionists accept a pretty low threshold for notability. The policy asks that there are independent sources that confirm the existence of groups such as this, and it's pretty clear to me that this is a real thing. I guess my question to those of you who voted delete, is this: What evidence, specifically, would you require to see before you accepted that this organization is notable, i.e., that you'd change your mind? And please be as specific as possible. --Leifern 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally would like to see it cited and described in some respectable neutral publication. Since I myself supplied one of the links in the article, I would know 'respectable' and 'neutral' when I see them, but anyone can judge for him/herself, of course. But your thrust is correct, because that's exactly what's needed here - real proof of published notability, not a lot of hand waving. Crum375 03:22, 2 July 2006 (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.