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. the sources added after the relisting were clearly convincing, for almost all the subsequent comments after they were added were keep. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP in that there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. —Biosketch (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( Please note immediately-following reply was added per wp:indent after most or all of the comments from other !voters shown below had already been posted. )

@Biosketch: The WP:NONPROFIT subsection of WP:CORP is the applicable governing policy in this AfD; just mentioning WP:CORP in its entirety is too broad. Saying the same thing another way, WP:CORP comprises Alternate Criteria for Specific Types of Organizations which itself comprises WP:NONPROFIT, which states:

( non-commercial ) Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

(1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

(2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources.

Non-commercial orgainizations have a much lower bar to clear to establish notability than wp:corporations do, in other words.  – OhioStandard (talk)

• Keep I found a number of news references and at least one article here written specifically about the organization. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. While appearing in a generally reliable source, The Register-Guard, this editorial is not independent of the subject, as the author is affiliated with IJAN.  --Lambiam 14:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A misinterpretation, Lambian? It's a subtle distinction, but if it's notability of the orgaization we're considering, not the reliability of any assertions made by the guest writer, then it seems to me that it's the independence of the publisher that's most relevant. Here we have an independent print newspaper with a circulation of 75,000, The Register-Guard, that has judged this organization and its message as being significant, timely, and relevant enough to merit the attention of its readership, and on the prime real-estate of its A7 editorial page, too. Of course, if the text had been self-published (e.g. if it only appeared in the newspaper only via a paid advert) then that would be a different matter; that wouldn't say anything at all the notability of the org. But as I see it, a guest editorial does.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( note timestamp ) Similarly, I just found a ten-minute video interview/debate with IJAN spokesperson/co-founder Mich Levy, published under the title | Not all Jews support the Israeli government by RT News. I include it here just to keep like with like: The RT interview is pretty general I/P slugfest stuff, but a similar argument applies as with the guest editorial, as I see it. RT News considers IJAN important enough ( or however you want to say that ) to use their representative as a principal in a debate/interview.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable organisation. An organisation that merits 647,000 Google hits can hardly be described as receiving "no significant coverage". IJAN has been the subject of an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons, signed by 27 MPs[1]; it has been mentioned in the Jerusalem Post[2], Haaretz[3], the Glasgow Herald[4], the Miami Herald[5] and many more reliable sources. No case for deletion RolandR (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Off-hand mentions in newspaper articles and opinion columns don't make an organization notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Much improved article, with quality sources. Plus sources have been identified on this page that aren't in the article yet. Still, it's troubling when a source describes the article's subject as a "small radical fringe group". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small radical group can still be notable. That's not the problem. The problem is that the sources that establish this organization's notability aren't independent third-party reliable sources – and the independent third-party reliable sources that do mention the organization don't establish its notability. What I find most perplexing, though, is that you've not seen fit to make any comment in relation to FrontPage Magazine, which currently seems to be the number-one source being invoked for arguing that IJAN meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. After all the energy you invested in this dicussion, one would think you'd at least have something nasty to say about them in this context. Not to mention that you were personally brought here by an editor yesterday to reconsider your vote.—Biosketch (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, Biosketch, you're making this terribly personal. There was nothing even remotely improper in this notification. I bet many more of the early "delete" !votes here would also change if the editors who registered them revisited this re the sources that have now been added. Don't you want !voters to give their best judgments based on the fullest and most current information available?

And no, I wasn't aware that FrontPage Magazine had previously been disqualified at RSN. But so what? We still have 15 or 20 other WP:RS articles that establish notability just fine, thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:I don't like it (because I would rather not see a nuclear war killing millions of people which is what will probably happen if Arabs do not learn to live with [the imperfect as well] Israel) but a Google search of recent news gave 10 stories about its recent activities. Clearly considered an important group, even if there is not an in-depth article online. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I.E. news coverage shows the group's importance and the article written by a member and possibly its own site gives details. This is what is normal for most political activist groups here. No reason to treat this one differently. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since noteworthy and update including newer news articles. CarolMooreDC 11:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE I am an inclusionist on many things, but this is anti-semetic, should not be kept. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I appologize, I prejudged the name of the article without analyzing at its content, This article has proper citations, and gives a short but detailed description of the movment, just because I dont like it doesnt mean it should be censored, so keep. If anyone would like to tag this for rescue, place this template ((rescue)) on the article itself. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "antisemitic"? If you think the article is antisemitic, then change it. But if you think the group is itself antisemitic, then that is certainly not a valid reason for deletion. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Right now I'm seeing [6] as the only source mentioned here that from an independent third party source (there are some sources behind paywalls I can't get to). I agree that the issues being promoted by the group are notable (and covered in Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zionism). I'm not seeing the group as notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Relister's comment: I have undone an inappropriate non-admin closure of this discussion, following a request on my talk page to review the closure, and after considering a related ANI discussion. I am relisting this discussion for further consideration.  Sandstein  19:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only causal mentions in newspaper articles and opinion columns don't make a notable organization. --Cox wasan (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The mentions do seem trivial, but ther also appear to be a lot of them Also there are these Sources that we can discus. [7][8] There is also this [9], but I can't read German. We also have this [10] "specially with the “International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network” a highly visible co-sponsor". This is all very borderline.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As a service to people who do not read German, on the page of the German-language source that is accessible via Google, the organization is the subject of the two sentences at the top of the page, apparently in the context of a general discussion of the concepts of antizionism and antisemitism. The two sentences, of which the first is incomplete, translate as: "... 2008 the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network [was] founded. It was initiated by a Jew living in Canada."  Sandstein  19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only a single source in the article (or presented in this discussion) is both more than a passing mention and is independent of its subject is the link which Stuart Yeates brought up--and its notability is somewhat questionable, as it is simply a declaration of support for the group from a group of British MPs which was included in a list of possible debate topics. It was never discussed, and it's not unlike a late-night speech in an empty House of Representatives (for benefit of the C-SPAN cameras) or adding something into the Congressional Record (which is not an indicator of reliability or notability). The others are passing mentions, except for the mini-article about the six arrested activists in the Jewish Journal, or links to not-independent sources, such as their own website. as a side note to Slatersteven, lots of trivial mentions don't add up to notability. Horologium (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you note I haved not voted.Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I broke it out as a side note. Horologium (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I find it interesting that many of the mentions revolve around Dr Meyer. [11] seesm to regard them as rahter more then a trivial organisation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After all this discussion it is becoming clear that this organization did not receive substantial coverage in independent secondary sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a bit more then just a trivial mention, but still not a lot [12] This also seesm to be non-tivial coverage [13] and this [14], refering to this [15].Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I have found a few articles that seem to indicate the group, whilst small, is receiving attention. That along with the acceptance (even by the deletists) that there are a couple of good sources is moving me in the direction of keep, but its still a moderately weak case. This [16] has a couple of paragraphs about them. Also more then just a trivial mention [17]Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If you look into this group, there is really nothing encyclopedic about them. --Need to reconfirm me (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Need to reconfirm me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete - the independent coverage is not substantial enough to qualify as significant. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zionism until it rises to the level of notability. (vote changed in an effort to reach consensus). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of deleting it, you'll replace the article with a redirect? Virtually the same thing. Is there more than a sentence or two at most that would actually be "merged"? Dream Focus 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Ample places cover them. [18] talks about a meeting they had. Their protests get coverage as well. [19] 79 results to go through, but those two I believe are enough. Its a real thing, and it gets coverage. Dream Focus 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article doesn't make any real claim of notability. Mentioned is not the same thing as notable. --Kylfingers (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An artciel does not have to claim notability, we just need soourcs that discuse them in a couple of paragraphs. We have sources that do this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what doesn't qualify as significant coverage: " Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability."—Biosketch (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, the full sentance says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This is excatly what has been done. This clearly meets the notabilty criteria, but thank you for drawing my attention to the fact. Two paragraphs discussing the organisations activities [20] . This [21] says “International Jewish Anti-Zionist … have important roles in creating policy and setting anti-Israel agendas but do not organize a significant number of events.” So the ADL think they are important, this also from the ADL [22].Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment at the Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). There's a problem, in my opinion, with the way WP:CORPDEPTH is formulated. It starts out saying that depth of coverage is the crucial consideration, only to undermine its own claim by next saying that unsubstantial coverage is fine as long as it spans multiple sources. It then concludes by reinforcing its first claim and contradicting the second one.—Biosketch (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered", not that it is crucial. Indeed I see no contradiction, it says that either one very in-depth source or multiple non-in-depth sources are needed to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The modal must communicates obligation, i.e. we're obligated to consider depth of coverage, which is also the spirit that issues from "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient."—Biosketch (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What defines Trivial or incidental coverage"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Stuartyeates. While there is some coverage in reliable sources it does not appear to be "significant coverage" in my opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kylfingers. Broccolo (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article appears to have significant coverage in reliable third party sources and meets the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any independent sources which discuss the organization's aims or goals? It's rather obvious that the only sources in the article (or which have been referenced in this discussion) that cite the goals of the group (beyond mentioning that they organized a specific seminar or were amongst a score of groups invited to speak at a handful of symposia) are sources from the group's own website. Even the sources which are critical (from the ADL) don't mention the group, only specific incidents without any context at all. If the group is notable, then somebody must have discussed them in a depth greater than what is presented here. I don't see that for this group. Horologium (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already cited in the article the book by Irish academic David Landy, Jewish Identity and Palestimnian Rights: Disapora Jewish Opposition to Israel, which refers several times to IJAN. This is clearly an independent and reliable source. RolandR (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please quote the three relevant pages of the book (pg 118 and pp 213-214) to demonstrate that they are more than a cursory discussion of the book? Again, I am not contesting the reliability of the sources; I am stating that they are not the substantial independent coverage. But now that you've brought it up, a publication from the former chair of the "Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign" might have some issues with weight and balance. Horologium (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most substantial reference is on page 118: "This is far from the case and it may well be that Americans are more aware of this problem; it is suggestive that the transnational organisation IJAN is by origin a US enterprise. While still a very small network, IJAN, established in 2007, has attracted considerable interest due to its uncompromisingly anti-Zionist pole of Jewish resistance to Israel. In terms of activism, IJAN is primarily involved in the boycott campaign, but has ambitions to set itself up as a transnational anti-Zionist pole of Jewish resistance to Israel. While it has small groups in Canada, India, Argentina and several European countries, its main organisational base is in the USA. Nevertheless it can legitimately be called a transnational network since it consciously tries to coordinate activities across continents --- one example of this is its campaign against the Jewish National Fund (JNF) for its involvement in ethnic cleansing in Israel/Palestine, and more broadly for its rôle in furthering what is seen as a racist vision of an ethnically pure Israeli state." There are also less substantial references to IJAN on pages 92, 100, 108, 152, 164, 195, 213 and 215. Please note that Landy, who discusses in the introduction to the book his possible conflict of interest as a Jew and a former chair of Irish PSC, is a lecturer on race, ethnicity and conflict in the department of sociology at Trinity College Dublin, and thus an acknowledged expert on the subject. RolandR (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that David Landy's name appears at this IJAN petition (number 243 on the list). He openly endorses the group and therefore might not qualify as an independent source.—Biosketch (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signing a petition hosted on the IJAN website is not the same as "openly endorsing" the group, which Landy has not done. IJAN is merely one of the 30 groups and individuals sponsoring the petition. Landy's book, based on his PhD dissertation, is a peer-reviewed academic study of the subject; and one of the first to study this issue. As I note above, in the introduction Landy explicitly addresses the implications of his own activism. The section is too long to copy, but I recommend reading what he has to say in this before dismissing the book as necessarily biased. RolandR (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Multiple additional sources found

• There's an attack piece that provides considerable detail about the organization in FrontPage Magazine that appears not to have been mentioned yet. This clearly pushes the org over the bar to establish notability.

• In an article about the anti-Zionist movement in Tablet Magazine this particular organization is discussed in two paragraphs of that longer article.

This organization's Never Again for Anyone on-campus event at Douglass College of Rutgers University on 29 January 2011 gained considerable coverage. It was met with very emphatic and well-organized opposition from Zionist groups. There were accusations and counter-accusations between opposing groups and this organization that generated significant coverage from multiple media sources:

• Pro-Israel students charge racism at Rutgers event from the Jerusalem Post has already been mentioned above, IIRC, but a quick scan gives me the impression that the following additional media coverage might not have been discovered previously:

• Controversy at Rutgers as Activists Attempt To Disrupt Pro-Palestinian Event in the Jewish Daily Forward gives a much more balanced account of the kerfuffle. It's the only source I've seen, for example, that documents Zionist poster-girl Pamela Geller's exhortations to her readers to show up to protest what she misrepresented as "a holocaust-denial and Islamic supremacy" event at Rutgers.

• Rutgers Students Rise Up to Protest Anti-Zionist Program in the Jewish Standard is a long article written from a perspective of support for those who sought to protest or disrupt the event.

• Pro-Israeli supporters clash with anti-Zionists at New Brunswick event by journalist Steve Strunsky in New Jersey's largest newspaper, The Star-Ledger, hasn't been mentioned yet in the article or in this discussion. Hadn't realized that police were called out to keep order, btw.

• The Jewish Week published a guest editorial about the organization, the Never Again for Anyone tour, and the controversy at Rutgers. It should be noted that this opinion piece was written by one a young man affiliated with the group that was most prominent in organizing opposition to the Rutgers event, a young man named Sam Weiner, "a junior at Rutgers studying Jewish Studies and Political Science. He is a member of Rutgers Hillel and is a member of the board of directors of Hillel International" according to his byline. See here re the Hillel group's involvement.

• Israel Supporters, Critics in Rutgers Showdown in the New Jersey Jewish News.

I haven't checked other locations where the Never Again for Anyone events were also held. But it'd probably be worth looking into that more closely... Oh, wait; there was evidently also some controversy around the tour's event at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:

• Palestine Lecture Tonight at UWM Draws Criticism in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

I also saw some criticism of the Never Again for Anyone events held in Canada and California, but only in obscure, possibly non-RS sources. Also, the org's own description of the Rutger's controversy can currently be found on the its subsidiary website, NeveragainForAnyone.com, while Rutger's official statement about the controbversy may also be of interest.

Please note that I haven't added any of the above to the article myself. I'm not spending as much time here as I have in the past, and find that I'm enjoying research more than composition lately, anyway. I hope other editors will feel free to use the sources I've documented here to contribute content to the article itself.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are excellent sources for Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zionism but don't actually discuss the organisation in a great deal of detail. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy does not require indepth coverage, just non trivial coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Given that I never actually voted, I'm formally logging my vote as a strong delete. Per User:Ohiostandard's latest additions at the top of the page:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,<ref name=Multiple /> third-party, independent, reliable sources.

Note that it is necessary for the organization to meet both criteria. Is the scope of IJAN's activities national or international? It hasn't been established that IJAN's activities are either national or international in scale. Can information about the organization and its activities be verified by independent reliable third-party sources? Presumably "information" in this context means, Who founded the organization?; When was it founded?; Where are its offices located?; How many members does it have?; Who currently leads the organization? etc. Outside of the organization's own publications and the writings of individuals variously affiliated with it, there's little or no information about the organization and its activities in reliable sources.—Biosketch (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Edited per request.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Debolded per request.—Biosketch (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well apart from organsing speaking tours and demos in the USA, attending gatherings in Ireland, and suppriting tours in Scotland no. An organisation is RS for information about itself.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an independent RS as required, though.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RS do not have to be independant, as long as the information is not unduly self serving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. So for information like who set them up or When it ws founded they would be RS for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so, Slatersteven: policy says self-published sources are fine in this case for basic, non-controversial organizational information. And anyway, half the questions Biosketch says can't be answered from independent sources are actually independently documented in the very first source I listed : "The IJAZN (sic) was created in 2008 when Professor Moshe Machover and Selma James announced the adoption of the organization’s charter at a press conference in London." Different sources also verify this, along with related organizational information.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re national/international objection Biosketch raised, perhaps I gave him the wrong impression in a comment I made above about the organization's recent Never Again for Anyone tour. It didn't just take place at Rutgers; those tour/events were all across the U.S., in 15 major cites, and also included Toronto, Canada, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only in the US and Canada. In 2010, the tour visited Paris, Lyon, Strasbourg, Vienna, Geneva, Berlin, Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, London, Belfast and Dublin.[23] RolandR (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, as User:Nableezy was honest enough to point out, FrontPage Magazine isn't considered a WP:RS as far as Wikipedia goes. The Admin considering this AfD needs to note carefully that per WP:NONPROFIT two criteria need to be met. Assuming good faith vis-a-vis User:RolandR's argument for international scope (I don't know where the sources are for all those cities, but supposing there are sources), we're still left without independent third-party reliable sources that give details about the organization and its activities.—Biosketch (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re WP:NONPROFIT criterion one: No one here, including Biosketch, genuinely disputes that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale". If he doesn't like their web site claims, or the press clippings there, well, we've already cited five separate WP:RS articles documenting one of its recent tour events in New Jersey, one WP:RS article for its event in Wisconson, and here's an as-yet-unmentioned source documenting the Toronto events and the ensuing controversy there. The org's recent U.K. events were also documented in WP:RS articles, e.g. this London RS article does so. Even tha Anti-Defamation League's own press-releases mention, in the past tense, about all the different places around the world this org has made these presentations.

Re WP:NONPROFIT criterion two: Can "information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources"? Information about its activities sure can, easily: We have an abundance of reliable source articles about its activities. I'd also like to see e.g. a "history of" article about the org that user Biosketch keeps insisting is necessary to meet this part of the standard, of course, but I'm not willing to say it isn't notable because we haven't found one. That just seems pretty far fetched when its activities get so much coverage and generate so much controversy. Organizations always get much more coverage for what they do than what they are, anyway; than for their structure & history. Besides, it would seem absurd to admit, as we can't avoid doing based on the press coverage, that their international presentations comparing the Holocaust with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians are notable, but the organization making them isn't.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Point of order. User Biosketch needs revert the "strong delete" !vote and bullet point that he just added, immediately above: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. I'd invite him to re-add the text of his views concerning WP:NONPROFIT as a new bulleted "comment". I'm not sure that would be strictly cricket per policy, but I'd have no objection and I doubt anyone else would, either.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not done. Your "done" edit still says "I'm formally logging my vote as a strong delete" with "strong delete" in boldface, no less. Thanks for your response, but you missed the point: As nominator, you have no separate vote; it's implicit in your nomination.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per OhioStandard and RolandR. The sources brought by OhioStandard are sufficient to establish notability for a nonprofit organization (though not the first one listed). nableezy - 12:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough coverage in reliable sourceshas been presented for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Keep it is very notable with a thorough coverage in | Google News Archive. One may politically have sympathy for them or not, but WP cannot censor their existence which is well reported by numerous third-party sources GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lay of the personal comments people.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:NONPROFIT states ( non-commercial ) "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

(1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

(2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple 3rd-party, independent, RS."

This org clearly meets criterion (1), and re criterion number (2), it gets so much press ( 15+ articles ) for its activities that I don't much care that no WP:RS journalist appears to have done a "history" article on the organization yet. Further, I don't think this really needs the nudge, but I'll also go ahead and mention that a bit lower in the text for WP:NONPROFIT, the policy suggests that "Factors that have attracted widespread attention" ( which would appear to include generating emphatic controversy documented in national and international media ) are also relevant to notability.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My opinion of this organization is irrelevant to whether the article should be kept. For me, the references are sufficient, with much of the detail coming from opponents of this organization. Controversial organizations should be covered by Wikipedia. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2011 (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.