Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies


 * 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 delete. Secret account 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Aggies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is absolutely nothing notable about "Jewish Aggies," which is simply a label for a religious group of TAMU labels (same as Christian Aggies, Muslim Aggies, etc etc etc). The article claims they are associated with the Chabad of Brazos Valley, however all Aggies who are Jewish are "Jewish Aggies," it is not a trademarked term. Article is tagged as being under construction, but I see no good place this article could go. It is, at best, a dictionary term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Collectonian (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney talk 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - what do you mean by saying notability is not a deletion criterion? You have made that comment several times recently.  Perhaps lack of notability is not a  speedy deletion criterion but my understanding is that through the longer and more thorough WP:AFD process we do assess articles for notability and agree to delete those that are not.  (note: my comment has no bearing on whether this article should be deleted)
 * Question - I thought notability was pretty important as per CSD. Does that not apply here since there is no clear statement of notability? I understand that the article may be under construction but that is a seperate issue. Ubardak (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I though notablity was the prmiay criterion. I don't know what this means. Is this a joke? Lobojo (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable and sourced. Also in the process of being written and attempted deleting while in the process of construction. Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is notable and referenced from at least one mainstream media source and two major Texas Jewish newspapers . Article was created on 27th and tagged with under construction. Nominated for deletion on 28th. No chance has been given to develop article.Nsaum75 (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So then, should we have articles for Christian Aggies, Muslim Aggies, Mormon Aggies, etc etc and then again for every last university in the country? The students actions might have been noted in some newspapers, but that doesn't make the term for a group notable in and of itself.  At best, it should be covered in the Texas A&M article, or maybe the article about the Chabad itself, since this article seems to claiming that only those associated with the Chabad are truly Jewish Aggies (guess the other Aggies who happen to be Jews but go elsewhere are somehow not allowed to use the phrase?). Collectonian (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is only a day old, and was tagged Under Construction from the begining. Lets at least give the author a chance to see if it can be developed into something that would stand alone on its own. Who knows, in the end information added might be enough for it to stand on its own.Nsaum75 (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to develop. It isn't a student group or organization, its just a generic term. Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasons stated above. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment & Query - With the understanding that the article is under construction, I would assume that the first thing put into the article would be information to establish notability. From what I am seeing so far, this group os not notable, even with a few articles written about a one time event.  Could someone  quickly add something to this article which establishes notability according to WP:N? LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Dictionary term? a stub now, that provides ample sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Move/Merge, it's sourced all right, but I don't wonder whether it would be better to create an article along the lines of Aggie, and merge everything into that. It would help those of us who don't have a clue what an "Aggie" is.  Lankiveil (talk) 05:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Aggie, in this case, is a student at Texas A&M University in College Station. Jewish Aggies are A&M students who are Jewish. Collectonian (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, is the "Jewish Aggies" an organized student group like the "German Club", "Campus Crusade for Christ", "Chess Club", etc or is it just a generic term to refer to anyone who attends the school and is Jewish kinda like we might say "Lutheran Wikipedians"? I thought/assumed this was at least a real student group ... if this isn't even an organized group ... why is this discussion even here? --B (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its just a generic term. The one site "jewishaggies.com is just the website for the Chabad Jewish Center because its catchy, not because it is an actual student group.Collectonian (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the organization that this article is about, then it should be renamed to that title ... there's no way in heck that an article about people of any religion in general at TAMU is encyclopedic. --B (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He already made one for the center at Chabad of Brazos Valley (other name for it). Collectonian (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable student group that will never be more than a stub --B (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - a G search seems to indicate that the term "Jewish Aggies" is parallel in meaning to (as noted above) "Christian Aggies", Methodist Aggies", etc; that is, this is not a student organization, and rather is an article about Jews at Texas A & M, or possibly a subset of that group, or a claimant to being the sole representative of that group.  In this sense, it is a neologism (even if it is not necessarily a new one).  The coverage found in the G search dealt mostly with coverage of holiday observance, and some problem with the campus administration which is not notable beyond the locality. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete at least based on current content, per Collectonian and B. The article seems to be based on a self-explanatory dictionary definition, namely "Jewish" + "Aggie". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think Collectonian and B have a point. If we allow this article then we should allow any student organization specific to a single university to have their own article. Ubardak (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this trivia and violation of WP:NONSENSE. It's a nothing "organization." Why would anyone think that this was encyclopedic? The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff; Articles for deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch and Articles for deletion/Chabad of Brazos Valley that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and as I have said many times, Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org, and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated Chabad sidebar template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   IZAK (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable as it is professionally sourced, it is an important interesting Jewish Org lets not delete it because it has some affiliation with Chabad.--יודל (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it is one of 3000 organisation that Chabad alone claims to run. It has no established premises, no permanant staff, and little regular activity beyond social gatherings for frat boys. The mentions in the press are merely passing referenes, nothing substantial is shown. There is already an artcile on Chabad on Campus, do we really want 1000 sub articles on Chabad on each and every Campus, just because the local biweekly Jewish paper plugs them twice? Lobojo (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above voter also describes Chabad rabbis as "(cultish self-promoters)" . I would appreciate it if the anti-Chabad comments and arguements could be kept out of this discussion. This is not the place to profane religious leaders of any kind!!! Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - this is a7, pure and simple Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Izak. In addition, the article states that a Jewish Aggie is a Jew at TAMU who associates with Chabad. What about Jews who don't associate with Chabad, are they not Jewish Aggies? Yossiea (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge important info from Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch, Chabad of Brazos Valley, Yossi Lazaroff, and Jewish Aggies into Texas A&M University. Don't worry about that section getting to big. All these articles are stubs that basically have the same info. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, one liner trivia. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has been rewritten and uses references from reliable sources such as ABC News and Texas Jewish Post. Bhaktivinode (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite requests, I have seen nothing more here to note the notability of this group, at least in terms of WP:N. True, there exists a few references, but they are all local, and at least one of them is not so much about the group, as it is about the celebration of a holiday that this group celebrates (WP:V is pretty clear: the resource has to be about the subject of the article, without connecting dots to get to the subject); and this is likely the highest profile of the three sources.  Unless this group has actually done something notable, I think its inclusion here sets an obvious precedent for an article on any college/university group that has not done anything notable, but simply wishes an article.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website for organizations. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a non-notable local student organization.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as Shawn in Montreal above Springnuts (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Chabad of Brazos Valley or Texas A&M University, see Brewcrewer above. Culturalrevival (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is a WP:CSD A7, and should have been deleted already; I'm tempted to do so myself. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Texas A&M University per Brewcrewer above. --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Delete for lack of verification, WP:V violation. The cited sources show no evidence of the existence of an organization or group of this name. Instead, they appear to be refering to "Jewish Aggies" only in a descriptive sense. A mention of "beer-drinking Aggies" in an article on Texas A&M pub life would not be adequate verification of a Beer drinking Aggies article claiming the existence of a student group of this name. There's no evidence the adjective "Jewish" is being used any differently in the sources than the adjective "beer-drinking" in the example. The adjective is capitalized because it's a religion, not because it's part of a proper name. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2008 (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.