Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KESHER (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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Union for Reform Judaism. Using sources identified here. Weak consensus appears to be there isn't enough for a standalone Star   Mississippi  21:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

KESHER
AfDs for this article:


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

Propose deletion or merging into Union for Reform Judaism, the parent organization. Non-notable arm of a larger movement, has been defunct for 15 years, with no WP:SIGCOV that would justify a stand alone article. In the previous AfD discussion, editors suggested the existence of WP:RS that could enhance the article. I did a WP:BEFORE, finding none of import. Longhornsg (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Longhornsg (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhat selectively and without prejudice into Union for Reform Judaism. Kudos to nom for nominating (even though nominated 2 years ago – usually not a good idea, this time it was) and suggesting an ATD. This SPINOUT is yet another example of excessive fragmentation! Previous debate was as usual down the rabbit hole of notability. People forget that we also govern information through AfDs :-( gidonb (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I objected to the merge-without-discussion based solely on the article's content making some claims of notability--didn't see the previous AFD at the time. Indeed it's (still) hard to find sources due to the name itself and its fading into the past. Found a few details:
 * Had national conventions. Not an independent source, but sufficient for the claim and demonstrates that the group at the time did at least some major things.
 * Was the only formal Reform-centric outreach/project for the approximately-college-age demographic. Independent ref that specifically makes that analysis (New Voices (magazine) is itself a notable publication), and the fact that this commentary focuses on it adds notability itself.
 * I'm torn, as it seems to have some but not major notability, and that is mostly as a project or sub-organization of URJ. Given that it morphed from "part of URJ" to "fore-runner of, or remnants absorbed by, Birthright Foundation" (each of those has own article), it's an intersection-topic. I tilt towards keeping such pages as stand-alone because it increases navigability and prevents it from gradually getting discarded altogether from the merge-target. So I see "barely keepable" on notability grounds and "somewhat useful to have" on editorial grounds. DMacks (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge. If you oppose merging, then please offer what you think should happen with this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. This debate is also down the rabbit hole of notability. gidonb (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.