Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewdas


 * 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 of the nomination was Delete, after discounting the 2 votes by anonymous users and the other 2 that were the users' first and only edits, there's a fairly clear consensus to delete. - Bobet 18:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewdas
This article about a "Radical Jewish Group" seems to fail in the notability area - there are plenty of ghits but apart from the groups own website, the rest seem to be MySpace, blogs and forums - also, there are no internal links to this article David  Humphreys SPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 04:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC) and in Jewish Renaissance Magazine http://www.jewishrenaissance.org.uk/current.htm (you see it in the contents but the article is not available online) Chuckycat 11:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:BIO. There is the Guardian article on it, which gives it a veneer of notability but not enough to meet WP:BIO#3. &mdash; Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.  - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nesher 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this phoney baloney. IZAK 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BIO and WP:WEB by definition don't make space for radical groups outside the mainstream, because they depend on some form of mainstream support for their inclusion. Given this, and given that "notability" however defined is not an official requirement, I think less damage will be done by keeping articles of this sort (assuming they have ghits) than by deleting, them, which inevitably politicises WP in certain directions more than continuing to allow their inclusion would. Dogville 07:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Genuinely original organisation within Anglo-Jewry which, although new has a significant following and impact. Deleting would be a political act designed to silence voices of dissent within the jewish community.
 * keep other articles about jewdas have appeared: on the jewish telegraphic agency http://www.jewishtimes.com/scripts/edition.pl?now=4/16/2006&stay=1&SubSectionID=87&ID=5566
 * keep other articles about jewdas have appeared: on the jewish telegraphic agency http://www.jewishtimes.com/scripts/edition.pl?now=4/16/2006&stay=1&SubSectionID=87&ID=5566
 * strong keep PREVENT 1984!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 * Strong Keep. There is no other organisation like this within Anglo-Jewry at a time when radical voices are so vital to reinvigorate the community. It also does great parties. Jewdas needs the publicity to allow it to grow, so it must be kept here!
 * 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.