Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StandWithUs
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 speedy keep. Rigadoun (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] StandWithUs
Nothing in this article even attempts to make claims of notability. There are sources which might make them somewhat notable, but there's nothing in the article which even addresses the information in the sources. Corvus cornixtalk 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --- lots and lots of sources, most of them crappy, none of them reflected in the article; I see why it hit AfD, but it needs cleanup, not deletion. --- tqbf 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The article has cites to the International Herald Tribune, Ynetnews, and Jewish Journal, all with specific coverage of the organization. A search of Google News shows five more current articles about the organization. That clearly satisfies the basic criterion of Wikipedia notabilty: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:NOTE. There's no requirement that a Wikipedia article explicitly claim its own subject is notable, nor is that common practice. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- An article that makes no attempt to establish why it's notable lacks an "assertion of notability", and can be speedily deleted for it. I agree with your argument, but as a process matter, Corvus isn't wrong. --- tqbf 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. I've cleaned up the article and added some sections showing newsworthy activities by the organization, with appropriate references to mainstream press sources. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- An article that makes no attempt to establish why it's notable lacks an "assertion of notability", and can be speedily deleted for it. I agree with your argument, but as a process matter, Corvus isn't wrong. --- tqbf 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note - This AfD immediately follows a vandalism attempt by an anon. See User talk:70.251.83.141. Prior to that, nobody had made a substantive edit to the article in months. Not sure what's going on here. --John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think Nagle's edits may help this article to just barely scrape through on notability, only in that it addresses its sources, though it still doesn't say much about what makes the site notable. I'll withdraw my nom. Corvus cornixtalk 17:46, 31 December 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.
