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.
Keep- I think it passes the notability requirements. It is poorly written (overly promotional, many POV issues), but that's not a reason to delete. It should just be fixed.
Inf-in MD (
talk)
00:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Inf-in MD: I was originally looking at
WP:TNT -- Is so much of the article promo and so many of the sources biased/unreliable that the article should be blown up and started again from scratch? But looking at
WP:ATD, maybe a reasonable approach would be reduce to stub by removing all, or almost all, of the info that isn't from reliable secondary sources. --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem is that perhaps 2/3 of this page is
WP:PROMO referencing their site, or other direct supporters, or from other unreliable sources. That's why I pondered if
WP:TNT is the fix. Would you support a major truncation of this page, deleting almost everything that comes from non-reliable or primary sources? --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
21:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I am in general in favor of removing material not cited to reliable sources. However material cited to the organization itself is usable per
WP:ABOUTSELF. That is besides the point here though, and if you no longer favor deletion you should withdraw the nomination. nableezy -
21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It's unclear this actually meets notability requirements. Relevant guideline here would be
WP:NORG as it's an organisation. Most aren't even GNG sources, but ignoring those there's a handful of at-a-glance acceptable sources, except when you look closer these don't seem to meet NORG (e.g.
[1] isn't about the organisation, it's about an individual,
[2] isn't substantial coverage, even
[3] isn't really useable). I haven't checked every single source, but of those I did check only FN7 (
[4]) was NORG-acceptable. If there are "Zionist organisations" that don't meet NORG they should be nominated for deletion too; see
WP:OSE.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
23:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
Keep- I think it passes the notability requirements. It is poorly written (overly promotional, many POV issues), but that's not a reason to delete. It should just be fixed.
Inf-in MD (
talk)
00:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Inf-in MD: I was originally looking at
WP:TNT -- Is so much of the article promo and so many of the sources biased/unreliable that the article should be blown up and started again from scratch? But looking at
WP:ATD, maybe a reasonable approach would be reduce to stub by removing all, or almost all, of the info that isn't from reliable secondary sources. --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem is that perhaps 2/3 of this page is
WP:PROMO referencing their site, or other direct supporters, or from other unreliable sources. That's why I pondered if
WP:TNT is the fix. Would you support a major truncation of this page, deleting almost everything that comes from non-reliable or primary sources? --
Bob drobbs (
talk)
21:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
I am in general in favor of removing material not cited to reliable sources. However material cited to the organization itself is usable per
WP:ABOUTSELF. That is besides the point here though, and if you no longer favor deletion you should withdraw the nomination. nableezy -
21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
It's unclear this actually meets notability requirements. Relevant guideline here would be
WP:NORG as it's an organisation. Most aren't even GNG sources, but ignoring those there's a handful of at-a-glance acceptable sources, except when you look closer these don't seem to meet NORG (e.g.
[1] isn't about the organisation, it's about an individual,
[2] isn't substantial coverage, even
[3] isn't really useable). I haven't checked every single source, but of those I did check only FN7 (
[4]) was NORG-acceptable. If there are "Zionist organisations" that don't meet NORG they should be nominated for deletion too; see
WP:OSE.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk)
23:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)reply
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.