Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJOP


 * 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. John254 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

AJOP

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing sourced, and site reads like an advert. Reading the edit history shows a user of ajop613 heavily modifying the article (which reads much better than it did at first) but it still reads like an article violating WP:SPAM. What I would like is either for this to be deleted or for the article to be sourced from external sources. I think an org like this can be on Wiki it just needs to be according to Wiki guidelines. Yossiea (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this request, i was the creator of the article please see my vote to delete.--יודל 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yidisheryid: Please see WP:OWN you only started this article as a stub. It was then blocked due to edit warring by you. And it was at that time that it was nominated for deletion. Subsequently it was I who improved the article greatly bringing up to a request Wikipedia level. Since that time, User:Yossiea has asked that his nomination be withdrawn but you have fought it. Your summersault makes no sense. IZAK 05:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   —Yossiea (talk)  16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Related AfD: Articles for deletion/Orthodox Jewish outreach gidonb 14:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unless it gets wikified. Yossiea (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Changed to keep below -- Avi 14:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As in all of these cases, there needs to be an assertion of notability supported by at least two sources that have to be independent of the organization and at least plausibly reliable -- can't be a blog or similar. If this isn't arguably met the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia; if the sources are impeccable it's clear it does; we can discuss gray area. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That strengthens the AFD because there aren't two external sources in the article. Yossiea (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It has more then 2 independent sources--יודל 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in the article. Yossiea (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I created this article mistakenly unaware of Wiki's fundamental principle that a subject which does not attract worldly attention, isn't important to get its article here, after all this isn't yet a Jewish Encyclopedia, we must not push here inside Jewish subjects, which may very well be important for some Jews, but in the context of the broader whole world its sounds very trivial and non-notable. My first inclination to create this article was based on my desire to attract Jewish users, misunderstanding the concept of an inclusionist, believing mistakenly in as many more articles here as possible, but in retrospect i still would like to see the minimal standard by doing business here, and this article hasn't met it in regards of the Notability factor, since no established information or media outlet is on record talking about them.--יודל 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As Shirahadasha pointed out, there needs to be an assertion of notability supported by at least two sources that have to be independent of the organization and at least plausibly reliable -- can't be a blog or similar. Until that point, the article can't be on Wikipedia. Yossiea (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You have given no real rationale for deletion, if u agree openly and honestly that this org is notable, you cannot get it deleted on your claim that it reads like spam, please help me fix the language and provide the more sources, it is currently sourced quite heavily and far exceeding the average Judaism related articles in this regards.--יודל 19:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your sources are not valid. The first one is from an internal AJOP person. The second one again, is just a link to a software package sold by AJOP. The article has NO external sources about AJOP. Yossiea (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, that individual isn't working with AJOP for ten years now, so he is serving for the source we need him to show u that people indeed do call this subject with the way it is written in the article. And to the point, Third party online business selling all kinds of merchandise is enough reliable and independent to cite as proof that there work is being sold out there and does exist. In Capitalism a subject is always considered notable if a reliable business is selling its products. And this subject does make waves economically so the proofs should not be discounted as biased because they make some money of the work of this subject, while u yourself claim that they are indeed Notable! --יודל 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are not making any sense. Furthermore, this is an AFD discussion, not the article's talk page. Yossiea (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let others decide who makes here more sense. Please resist turning to personal insults in order to get this article deleted, You yourself have declared this subject enough notable for a encyclopedia and i ask you instead of getting it deleted because it fails some standard. Rather fix it. Thanks.--יודל 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Avruch 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Spammy and no independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To: User:Yidisheryid: Agreed, a newspaper article is notable. Also, to User:Cap'n Walker since you wrote the above I have reworked the article, added info and made it not spammy but more informational. Please read the article. IZAK 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, even a simple google search shows it is notable enough, the article could use some improvement and expansion, which of course can't happen until it is unprotected. -- M P er el 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider now that it was only closed for a few hours and reputable reliable sources have not yet been added for almost a week that the article exists, i urge you to see that all hundredths of Google results are indeed exclusively from AJOP connected and invested subjects. Wikipedia does not operate like Google's machine, we are real people if notability isn't established by humans, but only search engines it does not match wiki standard of notability.--יודל 16:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because this is a very notable Orthodox organization that has been around for over twenty years and it was the first organization of its kind (and still is) that was based on uniting and enhancing the "kiruv" (Jewish outreach) work by bringing together in North America all Orthodox groups involved with the Baal teshuva movement. It is the only organization not affiliated with Chabad that is recognized by virtually all Orthodox kiruv workers and professionals as having served to unite them, particularly throuh its conventions. It was founded through a multi-million dollar grant from the AVI CHAI Foundation and at its annual conventions almost every major non-Chabad "Kiruv" rabbi has been a featured speaker and presenter. If it the article has faults, as do many articles when they are first written, the nominator, in this case User:Yossiea could have brought this article to the attention of other Judaism editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and there is no doubt that he would have been told that AJOP is a WP:NOTABLE organization that is indeed WP:CITEd on the web and many printed sources. AJOP has also published its own books and tapes. Its website at http://www.ajop.com/ introduces the organization well, and there are many Google references to this organization that make this nomination highly questionable. IZAK 02:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE 1: It is ridiculous to have a vote on this article when it has been protected for four days . How and why did it get blocked? This is not the way to do business! Kindly get someone to unblock it. What's going on here? IZAK 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it has now been unprotected . This should not be happening. IZAK 03:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE 2: I have re-written the article with more information. The article deserves time. IZAK 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yossiea. Fails WP:V, WP:ORG. Zero independant sources. First reference is a Wikipedia article, which obviously doesn't fly. Second reference is the organazation website, also no good. Third reference is WP:SPAM, which is not that great either. The fourth reference is a website that is under construction. Wow! Getting better! The fifth reference, the Baltimore Jewish Times, merely lists the address of the organazation. A no-brainer for deletion. --Yeshivish 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet vote, see WP:CSN. MER-C 09:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeshivish: Are you not familiar with how organiztions work in the Orthodox world? What kind of screaming headlines do you expect? The article describes this 20 year old organization that is well-known to basically every Orthodox Jewish outreach rabbi. Perhaps it is a mark of the non-controversial nature of the organization that it has not generated headlines but is nevertheless well-known, so the haset to delete here, in the context of Orthodox Jewish life in North America, makes little sense the way you present it. Some shikul hada'as ("practical evaluation" see WP:IGNORE) is needed here. If you are going to be so "strict" about it, then prepare to have 90% of all articles relating to Orthodox Judaism on Wikipedia blitzed out of existence. Oh, I have re-written the article, it is not "SPAM". And see WP:LAWYER which you are evidently violating. IZAK 05:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! An organization that is involved in outreach is connected to the outside world and should have some sort independant sources backing up it's notability. Especially, if as alleged (unsourced of cource), it is around for 20 years. You racked up a long list of references in the article, but most of them are worthless WP:SPAM. Can we get one independant source that discusses the notability of this organazation?--Yeshivish 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTE:I am not fond of your underhanded shtick accusing me of violating WP:LAWYER. When the Wikipedia rules for notability are in your favor you use them, and when they aren't you hide behind WP:IGNORE and WP:LAWYER.--Yeshivish 08:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my, you have been blocked . The histrionics are not appreciated. IZAK 09:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTE 3: I have now completely reworked the article, and I have requested the following from User:Yossiea: "Please reconsider your nomination: Please re-read the Association for Jewish Outreach Programs article in its entirety and you will see that I have thoroughly Wikified and re-wriiten it with lots of new info, and moved it in the direction of a more critical article. I have added over twenty new citations including two key ones where AJOP was discussed in major Jewish communal and academic forums, see Association for Jewish Outreach Programs. I have added an AJOP as an international Jewish resource section, based on painstaking research and not from "spam" or "blogs" and citing each link in detail. I have also added information about AJOP's origins, and where it fits into the broader scheme of things in the Orthodox world. Thank you for giving this matter your utmost attention, and I sincerely hope that based on the latest version of the article you will reconsider and withdraw your nomination at Articles for deletion/AJOP which I believe was done in too much haste. Thanks again. Sincerely," IZAK 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is only considered a rework that it should not be readable, it was spread out to the point where the article is cumbersome to read filled with heavy anecdotes about its history and office workers, its a downgrade of the article, u have deleted the Baltimore Jewish Times citation, you have deleted the Edah citation, and replaced it with 20 or so Kiruv mirror blogs represented as citations and, but still not one single independent citation that establishes its notability. Since you voided all the non-Kiruv sources and replaced it with clowns Kiruv P.R. blogs citations, it is now virtually Spam by all means and it should not be in the Wikipedia for one second.--יודל 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, you make no sense. Your brief version was headed for deletion but I improved it so much that the original nominator agreed to withdraw his original nomination and now agrees that the article is worthy of being kept (something that raely happens.) The article is not about its "office workers" (what a cheek to say that) -- it lists all four directors who head/ed the organization and its three presidents (in a span of twenty years) each directore tried to move the organization in a certain direction which is a key to understanding its history and attempted function/s in the world of Orthodoxy. That is part of a twenty year history, is it not? Nothing made up here and no bias, and no clerical workers or typists and other rabbis who worked for the organization are listed (why should they be?) There are two VERY notable citations especially, from the one from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Jewish Law Commentary --neither of which is affiliated with AJOP and are very important in their own right. The other refernces and citations serve as an important function of AJOP's notabilty far and wide in the English-speaking Orthodox world. Let's not play mickey-mouse here please. IZAK 09:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The user who opened this nomination and later retracted it has opened many other AFD's and has retracted it, look Articles for deletion/Orthodox Jewish outreach, look Articles for deletion/Yitzchak Berkovits another was deleted after one day so he could not retract it Articles for deletion/Moshe Weinberger, It shoes nothing just a pattern that this is what he does all the time. About those 2 links, one is from Avi Shafran the biggest P.R. pusher for Kiruv and the other one is a passing mention in a secondary source, that does not in any way show a sign of Notability at all. As for your request we should not play mickey mouse and we should except all those other 20 English speaking orthodox citations as enough proof that they are notable, i would like to remind you of a double standard here, we cannot request strict standard when it comes to other people and when we deal with our own we look the other way and throw those standards out the window, i for one will not be part in this cabal, sorry, rules are rules.--יודל 12:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --LAZY 1L 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet vote. MER-C 09:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi LAZY 1L: Since the nom, I have re-written the article, it is no longer "SPAM". IZAK 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article improved to point where notability ascertained. Now as for copyediting and prose.... :) Avi 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article as improved adequately asserts notability and has enough references to keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. lack of independant sources attesting to notability. fails WP:ORG.--Truest blue 04:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet vote. MER-C 09:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nomination Taken Back?

 * KEEP I take back my nomination of this AFD. I already closed it but user yidisheryid, who at first was the main vocal "keep" person now changed his mind and he is for deletion. Since he can't follow instructions as per a closed AFD "DO NOT MODIFY", instead of creating a new AFD or going to deletion review, he just keeps reverting the AFD. Therefore, I am letting all who need to know that I as the nominator take back my nomination. The article was greatly improved by Izak, and even now after YY has reverted many of his entries, it is still good enough for me to take back the nomination. Furthermore, YY's new reasons for his delete vote is not wiki policy. Yossiea (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 *  DELETE You haven't closed it only after i seconded this nomination. You cannot close my nomination, since u r not exclusively the nominator, you can say that Izak has persuaded you, but don't force this subject to be cosed since you are not the only nominater of this discussion. And all the same reasoning i and you gave before was not addressed, i the nominator of this discussion hereby declare that i am not closing this request--יודל 19:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "12:36, 20 September 2007 Yossiea (Talk | contribs) (821 bytes) (Creating deletion discussion page for AJOP. using TW)" (psst, that means that I created the page. That makes me the nominator.) In addition, your delete vote is already on top, meaning you are voting twice which is illegal. Yossiea (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I requested this nomination long before u considered to close because Izak has left you some messages. YOU cannot close my nominations.--יודל 19:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, AfD nominations are only allowed to be retracted if no other "delete" votes have been expressed. In this case, leave it open and let it run, we will see what happens. P.S. I've strucken your vote above to make your retraction more clear to other readers. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * speedy keep don't use ADF to clean up articles. Jon513 20:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Can use improvement, but the AfD is not the place the deal with such matters. gidonb 14:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep In light of the extensive reworking of the article since nominated for AfD, the article establishes notability for teh subject using ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn 14:21, 23 September 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.