Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havruta (organization)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Havruta (organization)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page doesn't meet the notability guidelines of WP:ORG Proud Novice (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 24.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 01:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Here is significant coverage in the Jerusalem Post. There is also English coverage in Ha'aretz and various American Jewish newspapers. There is a strong presumption of coverage in reliable Hebrew language sources. Has nominator checked?  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the moment a lot of the article is unsourced and it reads too much like a promotional piece.  These are fixable problems and not reason enough for deletion.  Notability seems to be secure. Zerotalk 07:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The Press section includes multiple articles from sources on three continents about the organization and its activities. These sources establish notability for the organization and need to be better integrated into the article. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, good deal of coverage from secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. Per the above. I would advise the nom, a new editor, to take the time to follow some more AFD discussions before making any more nominations, to learn more as to what constitutes a proper nomination for AfD.  It would save both his time and that of the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep because it seems that the nominator evidently appears to be guided by WP:IDONTLIKEIT since based on the nominator's own limited history of user contributions something about the way this "seemingly limited" user uses WP terminology makes it seem that he/she is not such a "novice" and perhaps WP:CHECKUSER may be needed to clear up any WP:COI and WP:NOTSOAPBOX violations. One does not have to agree with everything, but WP is a universal encyclopedia that allows for all subjects to be presented in a WP:NPOV and WP:RS manner that this brief article does qualify for. IZAK (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2013 (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.