Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LJY-Netzer


 * 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/redirect to Netzer Olami. Notability is not inherited, and arguments regarding the lack of independent secondary sources led to the close. Sourced information from the article can be merged into Netzer Olami, to which this page now redirects. MastCell Talk 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

LJY-Netzer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No long winded reason - just haven't found any evidence in the article or on the internet that the article meets the primary notability criteria of having recieved coverage by any reliable, independant sources (Notability). The notability tag had been up for a while with no changes or comments Guest9999 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   —Yeshivish 19:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Netzer Olami, of which this group is a subsidiary. Most of the article is too specific and in too much jargon to be comprehensible or of interest to the average Wikipedian (though I happen to understand the jargon terms).  Someone should leave me a note if you want help executing a merge. Shalom Hello 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Netzer Olami, of which this group is a subsidiary. Most of the article is too specific and in too much jargon to be comprehensible or of interest to the average Wikipedian (though I happen to understand the jargon terms).  Someone should leave me a note if you want help executing a merge. Shalom Hello 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 *  Weak Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx 03:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Together with Reform Synagogue Youth (AFD nomination by the same nominator), this is the UK affiliate of the international Netzer Olami movement. Its relationship to Netzer Olami does not appear to be that of a subsidiary, but rather is that of an independent member of a coalition or network. --orlady 03:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 07:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - it's a very interesting and large organisation, and certainly satisfies the notability policy.--Rambutan (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Would you mind saying how it "satisfies the notability policy" (Notability), being interesting (which is subjective) or large (which I would dispute) does not make up for a lack of reliable independant secondary sources which no one has yet shown any evidence of. Guest9999 23:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * The way I see it (as one disinterested observer who has no personal knowledge of these groups), Netzer Olami is a notable movement within a notable Jewish denomination, with good support for notability. Netzer Olami is, however, not a single entity, but an international network/coalition of national Netzer Olami organisations. That tells me that the individual constituent national organisations of Netzer Olami should be presumed notable, as long as there is solid evidence that they are real national organisations with recognition from the international entity and substantial participation (not, for example, something made up in school one day). The fact that national reform Judaism acknowledges the youth group and international Netzer Olami organisations such as Netzer Australia proclaim a connection with the UK group helps confirm that the UK group (which is apparently is one of the larger Netzer Olami units around the world) is a real component of the UK denomination and the global network. --orlady 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply As there are no independant sources or references (there are none mentioned in the article, I could find none and none have been mentioned in this debate) any information would likely come from the group's website (I would bet everything currently in the article can be found there). This essentially (in my opinion) means that the page would always be either a vanity project or advertisment - not an encylopaedia article. Regardless of this I still maintain that this lack of independant reliable sources or references means that the page fails the primary notability criteria. Guest9999 02:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * As to satisfying WP:NOTE, it is a constituent of Netzer-Olami, and is thus notable. Every British MP is notable even if they've only been in office for 30 seconds, because without the MPs there is no parliament. Plus, a Google search for LJY Netzer brings up 656 results, of which only the first four should be discounted for being affiliated with the source (three are from the LJY website, or the website of the parent body, Liberal Judaism; one is the WP page).--Rambutan (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Having gone through the first thirty of the results I would have to disagree with your assessment of the google results. Of the first thirty only one seemed to be a reliable, independent secondary source and that wasn't really about LJY, just mentioning it in passing.

Guest9999 16:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * 1)	Liberal Judaism page – affiliated
 * 2)	(as above)
 * 3)	LJY home page – affiliated
 * 4)	Wikipedia page – not secondary source
 * 5)	Dead Link
 * 6)	Dead Link
 * 7)	In first line of article reads “We aim…” – not secondary source
 * 8)	“We make sure…” not secondary source
 * 9)	Links to diary of events – not a secondary source
 * 10)	 Zionist youth council – LJY is a member – not independent secondary source
 * 11)	 LJY home page - not secondary source
 * 12)	 Directory which includes a person who is a member of LJY
 * 13)	 (as above)
 * 14)	 Page from Reform Synagogue Youth home page – not independent secondary source
 * 15)	 Contribution from members – not independent secondary source
 * 16)	 Promotional material (in pdf form) – not secondary source
 * 17)	 Wikipedia article – not secondary source
 * 18)	 Possible secondary source – [] – does not give significant coverage – two one line mentions.
 * 19)	 Links to an e-mail address – not secondary source
 * 20)	 LJY MySpace page – not secondary source
 * 21)	 Search page – not secondary source
 * 22)	 Promotional information (as pdf) – not secondary source
 * 23)	 AOL video – not secondary source
 * 24)	 Reform Judaism page – debateable secondary source but isn’t actually about LJY
 * 25)	 NFTY website – affiliated
 * 26)	 (as above)
 * 27)	 Forum posts by group member – not secondary source
 * 28)	 List of addresses
 * 29)	 List of phone numbers
 * 30)	 Does not mention discuss LJY – not secondary source#


 * 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.

si:Template:Bottom