Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians


 * 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 13:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians
Delete - Article was originally succesfully prodded, but then recreated by CJCurrie. The organization itself has little notability outside of its own members. Most of its Google hits are either promotional press releases or single name mentions in a CJN article. They seem to be not much more than a fringe group, one of any number of left wing independentist Jewish groups who make similar claims to "represent" the Jewish left. As someone who is involved at the national executive level of the Jewish community, I can tell you that I hadn't heard of this group until I stumbled across the article. IMO, the article itself is a vanity page. Perhaps, if they gain stature as the Congress of the "Left" they should be entitled to a page. But at this point, the organization does not meet any standard of inclusion criteria and is simply unknown in the community, completely NN. pm_shef 05:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's notable because it represents an opposition view. The news articles cited suggest that the Canadian media take this group seriously. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 06:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not verifiably significant or notable. Press releases don't count. -AED 07:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  61 google hits, they don't even have a website mboverload @  08:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep group has been the subject of a debate in the pages of the Canadian Jewish News and has been referred to in news articles in that paper as well as in an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail, the Canadian equivalent of the NY Times or the Times of London. They have been referred to by the Canadian Union of Public Employees as evidence that the Jewish community is not unanimous in codemning CUPE for its position on an Israel boycott. See this article by CUPE Ontario President Sid Ryan and are notable because their existence shows dissent in the Jewish community. They may have just over 100 members but so does the Muslim Canadian Congress. Ex-Homey 20:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia is not a place for promoting a point of view. By claiming that this organization is notable "because their existence shows dissent", meaning that they are notable by virtue of their representing the "other side", you are demonstrating that this article is simply to promote a point of view. - pm_shef 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's rather convoluted logic. NPOV means we have to have a balanced viewpoint in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole - this means reflecting various sides of a debate even if one side is much larger than the other. No one is saying the ACJC is "as notable" as the CJC or B'nai Brith but they are notable because they represent a dissenting voice. Recognising that is not promoting their point of view, it's simply being NPOV as an encyclopedia. Similarly, if the Muslim Canadian Congress had the same general viewpoint as the Canadian Islamic Congress there size alone (about 100, same as the ACJC) might not make them notable enough for an entry but as they represent a dissident liberal voice in the Islamic community (against Sharia law, for separation of church and state, for same sex marriage) their notability is established. We shouldn't be pretending that the Jewish community in Canada or internationally is monolithic and speaks with only one voice, that is not only POV and one-sided but it discredits the Jewish community and we shouldn't be doing that.Ex-Homey 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Muslim Canadian Congress is notable despite their numbers. No such notability exists for this group.  Tewfik Talk 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to concur. As the first congregation to remove the gender requirements for the local chapter of its B'nai B'rith, Temple Sholom in Eau Claire, Wisconsin without question was in the forefront of the "egalitarian" movement within Conservative Judaism, but I can't imagine even Homey arguing that the synagogue, the congregation nor the history of either, is even remotely sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article... [and even as I say that, I'm preparing for the sudden appearance of an article just to make a point...right here...] Tom e rtalk  07:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The group's involvement in debates concerning CUPE's boycott motion is enough to grant them status as notable.  CJCurrie 21:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.  - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per above. The article Ex-Homey provides was apparently published in the Globe and Mail.  Contrary to what Pm shef says, an article doesn't necessarily promote a point of view if it is about a point of view, even if a point of view is unique.  Uniqueness helps establish notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per above. --Daniel575 21:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems notable enough. ED209 23:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Szvest 23:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article (not even one on wikipedia)- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  I cannot find anything verifyable from reliable sources. They seem to have attracted less press attention than my local lawn bowls club. The world at large does not seem to care about this group and there is nothing beyond press releases from them to construct an article around. Peripitus (Talk) 11:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The newspaper that is quoted has an opinion peice by the president of the organization NOT an article about the organization. There is a big difference.  The opinion peice can only be used to show what Sid Ryan believe, nothing else.  It is not the job of the globe and mail to confirm that he even represents an organization.  There is no source that they organization exsists.  Jon513 17:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I'm an inclusionist and have to stick to my principles. But this has dubious notability. --Leifern 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete  per Jon513's point about the difference between the org's president, and the org itself. The group is completely non-notable. Saying it even has dubious notability stretches the definition of the word 'dubious.' Bibigon 20:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I have a number of Yahoo groups, does that make me notable? Avi 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom,  Tewfik Talk 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability can be established. It may be possible to merge some information into History of the Jews in Canada, or not. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Homey. Tom e rtalk  01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Per Homey? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Did I stutter? Tom e rtalk  17:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. However, if they should need a nickel to buy a domain, I'll be glad to help. --tickle me 03:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. Isarig 04:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Vanity. Ayinyud 13:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. IronDuke  02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity article about a non-notable organization. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Having an article about an organization does not mean endorsing their views. Seems notable enough, and Wikipedia should be the place the public can find balanced and NPOV information (improve rather than delete the article if it is not NPOV!) Bertilvidet 06:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It is somewhat notable - mentioned in news articles:, , but it does not seem that active.  If the article is deleted, after they have had a few more newsworthy accomplishments, it would make sense to recreate the article.  Also, it should be noted with some sadness that quite a few of the delete votes come from the anti-Homey squad.   --Ben Houston 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Worth noting here that both the mentions in "news articles" are from pretty fringe sources; the Canadian Jewish News, and ZNet, a political action group. Additionally, a mention, even from a mainstream news org, does not equal notability. Bibigon 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep — per CJCurrie. --Yakudza 10:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Mantanmoreland 13:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the ACJC is just one example of a significant development -- the growth of organisations willing to speak out as Jews against Israeli policy. Whether you agree with them or not, you cannot ignore the phenomenon. The proposal to delete seems to be an attempt to marginalise this viewpoint. But that is not the way to conduct a political argument. Leave the article on Wikipedia, and engage in any polemic on the talk page, or elsewhere. Don't abuse Wikipedia procedures for political ends. RolandR 23:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Loom91 13:41, 17 August 2006 (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.