Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devorah Brous


 * 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   merge to Bustan (organization) as there looks to be some agreement by all parties with a merge. –MuZemike 21:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Devorah Brous

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The cited sources either do not talk about Brous or only mention her in passing. Brous fails WP:N and thus this article should be deleted. Basket of Puppies 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nom had PRODded this article. I de-PRODded it, mostly because it has quite a lot of sources, which are not as irrelevant as the nom implies above, and at least merits a discussion. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think this article falls on the right side of the line (admittedly perhaps not by a great deal). The sourcing is actually pretty good for someone in the charity / NGO sector - humanitarian work doesn't get the same media space as sport and light entertainment, sadly. HeartofaDog (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've pruned the external links a bit, as there was some duplication (and I can't get the links to the various back numbers of the online Jerusalem Post to work), but frankly I think the nom is mistaken.HeartofaDog (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Examination of the references Based upon the above, it is clear that the references either are dead links, Brous is mentioned in passing, an unreliable blog or not mentioned at all. Thus, Brous does not pass the notability test. Basket of Puppies 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) From the organization's website, fails WP:RS
 * 2) Dead link
 * 3) Mentioned in passing
 * 4) From another organization, fails WP:RS
 * 5) Dead link
 * 6) Not mentioned at all
 * 7) Dead link
 * 8) A blog, fails WP:RS
 * 9) Fails WP:RS
 * Dead links : It seems not to be possible to link to old editions of the Jerusalem Post online, as I noted above, or to those of Haaretz, but as both are hard copy newspapers, dated refs to the articles are still valid.
 * Mentioned in passing : refs back up specific pieces of information in the article, which is what this one does: not evey ref has to be an extended biography of the subject.
 * For the rest, it seems to me that unreflectingly waving WP:RS like a magic wand at anything you don't like is not v productive. DB was founder and director of BUSTAN: there's no reason not to refer to the BUSTAN website for confirmation of that and of her activities with them, and so on. (Personally I have no problem with the blog either, which is a long-established and apparently well-regarded one, especially as this part of it is reproducing a letter by DB). HeartofaDog (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge with Bustan (organization)—notable in the context of Bustan, but probably has no individual notability to justify an individual article, per Basker of Puppies. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I cd probably go with that if necessary.HeartofaDog (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with merge, but only if the article for the organization can be salvaged from the huge copyright violations is suffers from. Large chunks of the article are direct copy/paste from the Bustan organization, of which I could not find a compatible license. Basket of Puppies  05:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge per above, pending copyvio clarification.-- Pink Bull  18:30, 16 June 2010 (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.