Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Federation of Temple Youth - Mid-Atlantic Region (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 of the debate was merge/redirect to North American Federation of Temple Youth.--Ezeu 01:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

North American Federation of Temple Youth - Mid-Atlantic Region

 * Question: Why was the original creator of this article not involved about the votes to delete it? It is now on his page, see User talk:CrazyDrumGuy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZAK (talk • contribs)


 * Redirect to North American Federation of Temple Youth. Assuming that the national organization is worthy of an article, that does not make its regional divisions worthy of separate articles. --Metropolitan90 06:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant data then redirect to North American Federation of Temple Youth. -- M P er el ( talk 10:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per MPerel. -- saberwyn 11:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep in this case because there is enough information here to give a sense of what this camp is about. IZAK 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are the events/attributes described absolutely, completely, 100% unique to this grouping/camp/suborganisation/whatever? If any/many of these are common to most or all Regions of the greater organisation, they shoud be described there, and this article (or section if merged) should describe how this particluar Region is unique: for example specific impacts within the geographic region. Or at least, that's my view. -- saberwyn 12:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Saberwyn: Why don't you put those questions on the article's talk page and contact those who care about it and jog them along. There is no point in demanding "instant information" like pouring oneself a fresh cup of instant coffee for instant gratification. Gathering more information takes time and writing takes time. Articles need time to develop, and they need to have the basics in place, put there by previous editors that will take things to the next stage. This article is a respectable beginning. IZAK 12:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I feel that these questions are directly related to your suggested reason for inclusion. If you want a series of funky bolded words to suggest my position, use merge to article on the main organisation and redirect, as I have above, not delete, I don't like it. The points have been raised on the article's talkpage under the "Merges" heading (I assume the addition of mergetags is pending the result of this discussion). I apologise if I have caused offence. -- saberwyn 13:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Goodness Saberwyn, there is no offence here whatsoever. Kindly note that I did not write these articles nor would I, as they are not in my real area of interest, but when I see that others have bothered to write up these kind of things and post them I therefore conclude that they are important and deserve further patience and scrutinity, and that they do not deserve to be "evicted" just because they are about children. You will find that articles dealing with children's topics will often sound and come across as somewhat "childish" or "simplistic" but that is no reason to get rid of them. They are important and it is NOT realistic to expect that these articles should conform to the standards of a sophisticated child psycholoogy magazine. Wikipedia is for everyone, it is not an encyclopedia for super-specialists who will doubtless look elsewhere for their information in any case. When ordinary people log on, they want to read ordinary articles about ordinary subjects, and the more sophisticated editors on Wikipedia should not lose sight of that reality. IZAK 15:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We normally do not keep local organizations, sub-chapters, etcetera. The article does not establish independent notability, and there is not sufficient material for a merge to the parent organization. Dr Zak 12:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn organisation. --Ter e nce Ong 12:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't keep subchapers as their notability is entirely dependent upon their parent organisation. Not enough material for merge.  Páll  (Die pienk olifant) 13:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. JFW | T@lk  14:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge (and redirect) - there seems to be substantially more saveable content in this article than the one directly above, however, so a merge will be more substantial. - Mark 14:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Mark. Some parts of each page are restatements of the parent (NFTY), other parts are common among the regions, other parts are region-specific. Let's not throw out region-specific info just because we don't need a whole page dedicated to each given region. DMacks 14:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per above. Homey 14:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per MPerel.--Isotope23 16:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. Jayjg (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to North American Federation of Temple Youth. Ted 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to North American Federation of Temple Youth.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 00:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to NFTY per community consensus that local/regional orgs are not noteable simply b/c the parent org is. - pm_shef 02:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per above arguments. --Yodamace1 16:16, 23 May 2006 (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.