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. v/r - T P 12:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paamonim[edit]

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

no sources, not notable and reads like an advert Soosim (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable non-profit organization. I'd have preferred a 'prod' template to give more visibility before an AfD. I'd have slapped on some I would not mind to improve the article but don't have time now. Will try at least a bit. --Shuki (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true, as nom said, that there were no refs. I've added a few from high-level RSs, reflecting notability. Generally, we should only delete if refs could not be added -- we don't AfD solely on the basis of whether the refs have in fact been added to the article. I also agree w/nom that the article could be cleaned up, but that is an issue for normal editing focus, not a reason for deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Indeed, the presence of reliable sources within articles is not a valid argument for article deletion. Rather, Wikipedia: Articles for deletion, Section D, “Sourcing Search”, #3 states - “In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.” Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noteworthy organization.--Sreifa (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - thanks for trying epee - one of the sources is highbeam and not the jpost itself. one of the sources does not say anything at all (the greer fay cashman gossip column). and the rest of the entire article has no sources. there are many non-profits which are indeed notable - not convinced that this one is. see WP:notable, from which i will quote here:

“

General notability guideline:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4] "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[5] A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

”

sorry. Soosim (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soos. FYI, as you are the nom, it is better for you to title your above note "Comment". Otherwise, people might think it a double-vote; just one of the non-intuitive wp conventions. As to the general issue, I focused not only on the few refs I added, but on the others, including those discoverable as ghits and gnewshits. IMHO, they are sufficient to show notability. It certainly is not famous (and I had never heard of it before), but in my view it is notable within wp standards. As to your hesitation with the highbeam reference, that is a well-established site that lists articles from thousands of newspapers and magazines -- such as this one from The Jerusalem Post. See here. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Soosim. Perhaps noteworthy, not notable. Currently, the article references two dedicated articles from a single source and one passing mention from a second. This does not show significant coverage approaching Wikipedia:N or Wikipedia:ORG. Articles on non-notable subjects aren't encyclopedic. JFHJr (㊟) 08:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources now in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – See also Google News results. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and I apologize if I wasn't sufficiently clear above. We should not limit ourselves to refs in the articles, but also look at the ghits, gnewshits, and references in books such as this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see there are sources now. Marokwitz (talk) 08:09, 21 September 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.