Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  01:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Renominating for the same reasons. 1st AfD was closed as no consensus.

Non-notable organization. Trivial coverage in both English and Swedish sources. Mooonswimmer 13:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism,  and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment for the nominator. I see you describe yourself as a "super-duper-hyper-inclusionist". There seems to be very little appetite to delete this. Is it too early to suggest WP:SNOWBALL keep? CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Before reaching my conclusion I reviewed the argument in the recent AfD. I see it was closed as "no consensus" after being relisted twice. I also did some searching, found some sources and added them in. I think these additions demonstrate notability. CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument of CT55555. I further would say the sources proposed by @User:Goldsztajn in the AfD discussion earlier this year are strong enough to indicate notability. Historyday01 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - per argument of CT55555. per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I posted 13 sources at the last AfD, I do not think it necessary to post the same sources here. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * My philosophy has shifted a bit in that regard, and I'm not too keen on having the page deleted or anything. This is just a discussion to help me train my Wikipedia muscles a bit. I'll be sifting through @Goldsztajn's proposed sources sometime tomorrow. I'm not fluent in Swedish, so it'll take me a bit of time. Mooonswimmer 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mooonswimmer That's not a particularly encouraging reply nor grounds for an AfD. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of WP:BEFORE on your part.  I second 's call for a SNOWBALL here and encourage you to withdraw the nomination.  Take as much time as you want considering the sources, but clogging AfD with nominations for "training" purposes is somewhat disruptive.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've carried out the necessary preliminary checks.
 * Citation [1]. Encyclopedia, tertiary source. 1 sentence in a 2930 page selection. Doesn't help establish notability.
 * Citation [2] Goes more into depth. This works.
 * Citation [3] Doesn't help establish notability, for obvious reasons.
 * Citation [4] Interview, primary source. Doesn't count toward notability. The publication of the interview in a reputable source would be a strong indicator of possible notability. Where was this interview published? Mooonswimmer 23:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding #4, the citation states where it is published (palestinagrupperna i sverige). Please forgive me if my enthusiasm to participate in an AfD-for-training-purposes beyond convincing every other editor that this is good enough to keep. Combined with the very recent closed AfD, the justification for this one is on even thinner ice than I first realised. I really think you should reconsider withdrawing this one. CT55555 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Safe to say it doesn't count toward notability, don't you agree? And see my comment below. Mooonswimmer 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that's safe to say. I think there is an established consensus that the hypothesis that interviews don't count towards notability at AfD is not agreeable to the wikipedia community. So I would say that a source the includes interviews (some by people connected to the organisation, some from a Palestinian organisation that is collaborating with them) is that it's open for debate. It's not the New York Times, but it's not nothing either.
 * I would also emphasize that we're allowed to consider the overall citation situation, lots of small mentioned can add up to notability.
 * This isn't a clear cut case. But it does seem clearly enough for everyone here to say "keep" and even you said you don't want to delete it, so what are we debating here? CT55555 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 42
 * Consensus seems to be "keep" per GNG, or per Goldsztajn's proposed sources. If you could explicitly point out 3 reliable, independent, secondary sources, that'd be great. I've addressed Goldsztajn's sources in a comment below. Mooonswimmer 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't create this article. I'm a volunteer editor. I hope my work was a contributing factor in convincing the room. I again state my reluctance to participate further in your training of your "Wikipedia muscles", I think it's a bad basis for an AfD and not good use of my time. CT55555 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m well aware of that. Thanks for your contributions to the article. And perhaps I could’ve worded that better. I usually stick to working on my own articles on Wikipedia. By “training my Wikipedia muscles”, I meant engaging in discussions so I could learn more about how to interpret and apply guidelines, and how to gauge what belongs on Wikipedia and what doesn’t. I didn’t randomly nominate this page for deletion so I could use the AfD as a playground. I did the preliminary checks after stumbling upon the article for a second time. I’m unable to see how it passes WP:GNG. Again, I’m not very active in AfD discussions, but I thought one was supposed to justify their vote. Not sure why it would be a waste of time to help an active editor understand how X article is valuable. I hope the others will eventually pitch in. Happy editing! Mooonswimmer 00:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There's also a little bit more than 1/2 a page describing the organisation and its history here and there was international coverage when the Israeli ambassador to Sweden vandalised an artwork by one of its members.
 * Comment From the previous AfD:


 * [1] Am I being daft, or is the organization not even mentioned in the article?
 * [2] Paywall, I might be missing out on some in-depth coverage. Could you please share the relevant content?
 * [3] Not seeing any ample coverage, if any at all...
 * [4] "By Staffan Granér, Spokesperson Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (YIPF)" Is this the non-trivial, independent coverage?
 * [5] Another paywall, would appreciate you sharing the relevant material.
 * [6], [7], [12] Perhaps you could explain how these count toward notability.
 * [8] Again, trivial mention. How does this help establish notability?
 * [10], [11], [13] Coverage is limited to briefly mentioning that Dror Feiler is involved with the group. Mooonswimmer 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: You've ignored the discussion in Landry and cut off an important part of my comment from the first nomination: "40-year old organisation, its representatives have appeared regularly in the Swedish media, some examples from the last 20 years" (the first 8 refs). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Landry? Not sure what you mean. I'm trying to apply WP:CORP.
 * "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
 * I addressed each source you've proposed, as well as the sources in the article. If you could point out at least 3 sources fulfilling the guidelines, then notability will be established and the Keep votes would be justified.
 * Any coverage besides trivial, passing mentions? Other than that, any major achievements, controversies, alliances? Perhaps some of these are mentioned in the paywalled articles. Mooonswimmer 13:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A misspelling: the Landy text, footnote 9. Picking apart sources this way misses the forest for the trees. NB: WP:NONPROFIT: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A further (last) contribution: simple use of machine translation of the Swedish articles shows JfIPP has frequent appearances in the Swedish media. Two examples: "Christian Democrat leader Ebba Busch Thor will speak at an Israel-friendly demonstration in Stockholm this weekend. But the organization behind the demonstration is criticized by Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace." or "Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace lack a strategy!". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above, notable as demonstrated by sources. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2022 (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.