Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Jewish Outreach Programs


 * 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. On balance, the material supporting notability is as strong as we generally use for organizations of this sort. We often have the problem with religious journals used to support notability or groups or peoples active in that religion, and it's similar to the very frequent problem of using trade journals to support notability of people or organizations in that trade. What in practice is basically needed in each case is some recognition from outside the religion or trade, and that seems to be present here,   DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Association for Jewish Outreach Programs
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's a somewhat lengthy article, but there are zero reliable references on the page. It's almost entirely original research right now, and is written like a WP:PROMO page. Page doesn't really make an assertion of notability either. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk)  23:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep this article was the subject of a prior AFD, []. I also fail to see the lack of sources, this article is well sourced. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD was from over 8 years ago, and Wikipedia nota::::::::::::::bility and verifiability policies have changed considerably since then. I am unsure what you mean by the "article is well sourced." Which references are you talking about? There isn't a single reference on the page that has in depth coverage. At least 5 references are deadlinks, although based on their titles it's unlikely they ever had any in depth information about this organization. References 13 - 27, which are more than half of the references on the page, are just a mention of the name of the organization. The rest of the article is unsourced and original research. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the more than adequate sourcing about the organization. Alansohn (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources in specific are you referring to? FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which sources are not valid? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of them is an independent reliable source with significant coverage, so none of them is valid for establishing notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of them, as I said in my nomination and my comment to you above. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent reliable sources with significant ::::::::::::::coverage have been presented either in the article or here, and I can find none elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources could be better, and we should really work to resolve the templates that have been sitting there for nearly five years. But deletion is unnecessary. The organization is legitimate and quite active within its world. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But our notability guidelines depend on significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not legitimacy or activity. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , just out of curiosity, what's wrong with jlaw.com? It's a reputable law and halacha site. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for identifying the best of the sources cited in the article, but it still only has three or four sentences about AJOP, so wouldn't be enough on its own to justify notability. Can you identify a few more such sources? If so it would help the case for keeping this article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * cross-currents.com Sir Joseph (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That source contains the sentence, "I was a Board member of AJOP for many years in the early years of the organization", so is clearly not independent. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And so what? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And so sources must be independent in order to contribute to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The only point I want to comment on is the WP:PROMO claim. I:::::::::::::: agree with that claim, also in view of who was the main contributor to this article. I have no opinion on the quality of the sources or the notability criteria for organizations. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  18:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most accessible sources are trivial, the one good one that's been pointed out isn't indepdendent. It just isn't notable. Maybe in a different world... –Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. This page has been listed and relisted for a month, and there is certainly not a consensus to delete. I think this should be kept for now, with a moratorium on a new AfD for, say, 6-12 months. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree. I don't see the reason for the multiple relisting. It's not as if there were no comments on the discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the discussion was closed now then it would certainly be as "delete", because nobody has made a policy-compliant argument for keeping, but three people have made such arguments for deleting. The consensus that we use is that among editors making policy-compliant arguments, not a count of votes. If you want this to be kept then you need to show that the subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not just offer a personal opinion of the subject. One independent reliable source has been provided that has a few sentences about the subject (jlaw.com), so if you can find a few more such sources this can be kept. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP. To the two commenters, I'm sure you're familiar with the WP:GNG, but neither of you have brought a single independent reliable source which would justify keeping this article (leaving aside their reliability, neither have anything more than a passing mention of this organization). Perhaps instead of criticizing th::::::::::::::e admins, you could research and make a policy based reason for keeping the article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to change my mind and support delete. I'm thinking AJOP may have shut down.
 * Frankly, I have been concerned that this nomination was motivated in part by bias. I need to say here for the record that (a) Orthodox communications vehicles that are reliable within their own world are sometimes denigrated by editors who are not part of the world, and (b) parts of the Orthodox world try not to live on the Internet, so finding online sources is not always so easy. I also found the continual relisting of the page offensive, in that it felt like people wanting a deletion were going to keep on relisting until they got enough support to win a deletion. My apologies if I misread peoples' motivation, but that's what it looked like from my seat.
 * All that having been said, I am no longer finding evidence of the organization's existence at all—even its own website is no longer operational. I'm not so interested in this as to try to prove that an AJOP of the past was notable. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * http://ajopconvention.weebly.com/ is the site, and it seems pretty recent. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a scholar source: https://books.google.com/books?id=4c7UBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=association+for+jewish+outreach+programs&source=bl&ots=zpehZlyj4_&sig=O2rndb-WNq7SALc5fwPLiNRfC3k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbx8XskajNAhWI8z4KHVeaCHI4ChDoAQhNMAU and a news source: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-outreach-revolution/ one thing to keep in mind is that AJOP had originally been the acronym for one thing but it was changed later on.Sir Joseph (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then edit the page and get the sources in the page. I'll flip back if you can find three unimpeachable sources. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:2::::::::::::::7, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's one more: http://klalperspectives.org/rabbi-ephraim-buchwald/ Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there is now more than enough to save this page. We have jlaw, cross-currents, the few google books cites, the klal-perspectives and the quite a few others I missed that was already in the article. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we need to get everything included. (Note: cross-currents is pretty marginal, even for me, notwithstanding point (a) above. It's still a blog.) StevenJ81 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As already noted the cross-currents source was written by a former board member of AJOP, so is not independent as required. Please don't repeat arguments that have already been refuted. The Google Books cite that you provided has one sentence saying that this group exists, which falls well short of the significant coverage required. The klal-perspectives source is an Internet forum, obviously not a reliable source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Klal Perspective is not a forum, it's an online journal with editorial oversight. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe I was wrong to characterise it in that way, but this is still an opinion piece by a rabbi about his addresses to AJOP, not an independent source writing about that organisation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * StevenJ81, nobody in this discussion has said anything that could remotely give you cause to think that they are motivated by anything other than a desire to maintain Wikipedia's standards. I find the implication of your assumption about motivation, especially the "and still does", deeply offensive. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 86, I don't understand why the page was relisted four times. I found that suspicious. But I am willing to place my suspicions in the past tense, at least. And I will repeat my apology in the present tense. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you want to work in the citation from Klal Perspective? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there's a real good spot for it, but perhaps under Founding in NY? That is what is currently in the article. I'm sure we can somehow add a section about AJOP and kiruv responding to modern technical issues. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I had really hoped that others with more knowledge of this than I have would undertake this work, but I guess it's going to be mostly on Sir Joseph and me. I think what needs to happen is this: (1) We need to get Klal Perspective (which is, in fact, a journal with editorial oversight), into the page. (2) We need to clean up junk and dead links in here. (3) We need to see what is left at that point. I'm thinking I need the rest of the week on this, since I have a real life, too. Are you amenable to that? StevenJ81 (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * StevenJ81, I read the relisting as bending over backwards to give supporters of keeping this article time to make valid arguments, quite the opposite of your supposition that defies our practice of assuming good faith. As I said before, this could quite correctly have been closed as "delete" before any of the relisti::::::::::::::ng. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, 86, I'm the one with egg (or worse) on my face right now. If you look through my work around here, you'll see that I'm usually a pretty strong proponent of AGF. And I flat-out failed on that in this instance. I have run across some anti-Orthodox bias on a few occasions here, but you are absolutely right that there was no explicit indication that there was bias here. And I assumed bias, rather than good faith. So I am 100% in the wrong on this.
 * Before this page is actually deleted, however, Sir Joseph and I plan to rewrite and scale down this page to something that the sources we have can actually support. We think that there are enough reasonably good sources here to maintain a short article on the organization, limiting the article to facts and taking out puffery and promotion. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You've had over a month to present such sources here and haven't done so. Why on Earth should you get any longer to do so? There's no need to spend time on editing the article - just show us the sources, right now. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you should give me longer because I asked nicely. And because it's clear that I thought that during the month's interval, the onus was on the deleting parties. I didn't think (and really still don't) that the sources here are so inadequate as to call the outright notability of the subject into question.
 * I do think the sources aren't great. I do think the p::::::::::::::iece is too promotional, and that not all of it is well supported by the sources. But Sir Joseph and I both think the sources already present are sufficient to show notability, and to allow a substantially reduced article to remain in the encyclopedia. I think that is what should happen.
 * That said, if an administrator comes here in the next few days and is bound and determined to close this as delete, then I will request it be userfied into my user space, and I will continue to work on it. StevenJ81 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion, I think the article should be userfied to your user space until sufficient reliable sources can be identified. There's way too much unsourced content right now, the tone is way too promotional still, and I don't think the sources provided so far meet the GNG. If there are more out there that haven't been identified, the article can be recreated later. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support proposal to userfy. I just want this out of the mainspace right now . —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck asinine addition to my statement, whose reason for adding I can't remember. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both FuriouslySerene and Compassionate727. This has been in mainspace for nearly nine years, with editors scraping the barrel to find adequate sources, and this discussion has been going on for a month with no new such sources being identified, so the issue of this being in mainspace needs to be decided right here, right now. If StevenJ81 and Sir Joseph think they can find better sources after all this time then of course they should be given a chance to do so, but in draft or user space, not mainspace. My understanding of the process is that if sourcing is improved a WP:DRV discussion should be used to determine whether it has been improved enough. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't agree that the sources are that woefully inadequate. But I suspect we're going to lose that battle. So go ahead and call in an administrator to close this as deleted–userfied, and let's be done with it.
 * Before I leave, I need to make the following point. As harsh as 86 has been, s/he and FuriouslySerene have generally been polite, and 86 has correctly called me out on my lack of good faith. But Compassionate727, when you say, "I just want this out of the mainspace right now," that's just nasty. You sound like you are offended at the very existence of the article, and are failing to assume good faith on my part and that of Sir Joseph. There is nothing in the article that should offend you that much. I suggest you look to 86 and FuriouslySerene to learn how to write comments that people will listen to. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even taking out the bad sources, there are more than enough good and reliable sources to justify an article, even pared down. I am a bit surprised by the tone of those advocating delete. I've seen far worse. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph, you have been invited several times to indicate which "good and reliable" sources you consider are adequate for establishing notablity, but have still only come up with the one source at jlaw.com that has a few dozen words about AJOP. I have already asked you to stop repeating arguments that have been refuted, but you are doing so again now. However many times you repeat an untruth it still doesn't become true. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Read up, I brought a journal, a google books source just to name a few. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And you read my responses to those. The first that you mention is not independent and the second only has one short sentence confirming existence. As I said, but you choose to ignore, however many times you repeat an untruth it still doesn't become true. Please don't use propaganda methods that were developed by the arch-enemies of the Jewish people. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WOW!. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WOW! I pointed out what you were doing here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. This is now at the point that we need an impartial administrator. (How do we get one?)
 * I think these sources are sufficient to show notability in a minimal kind of way. I'm also prepared to accept an impartial administrator's ruling to the contrary. But if you're going to start accusing us in that way, I'm not prepared to accept your opinion about this. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize. Looking back at my comment, I'm not sure why added "right now," as it is not something that I meant at the time, or have ever felt. Certainly, that would explain why that comment didn't 'feel right' at the time, and I can see why you are offended. I've struck it. I'm not sure that'll help anything, but I do apologize. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also,, since you've asked to be pinged to deletion discussions and we need an administrator, would you go ahead and close this thing before anyone (myself included) says anything else stupid? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:22, 16 June 2016 (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.