Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patach Eliyahu


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Patach Eliyahu

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

This religious subject has no real evidence of substantial reliable coverage - a search under the current title reveals just a single scholarly mention in a book on Chasidism, and the only web links are to chabad.org, a religious website and unreliable source - scant evidence of notability indeed. The current lack of inline citation and sourcing in the article online affirms that quotable sources establishing notability are hard to come by. That there is not even a Jewish Encyclopedia entry (a typically replete resource for this type of subject) is telling. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Judaism. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Most Sephardim recite Patach Eliyahu every morning as part of the order for the morning blessings before Shacharit." I have no idea if that is true, but if it is, I assume there would be some coverage about it. Possibly, the spelling is different or it's a different word. For example, it probably literally means something like "Elijah's prayer" so we probably have to look for sourcing under that term. I did a cursory search and found a few things, but not sure yet. There also might be a different translation of the Hebrew search term that would turn up more meaningful results. I agree that the Chabad website shouldn't be a reliable source, but if the statements in the article are at all true, there are probably references in the Jewish Encyclopedia or another reliable Jewish book. Andre🚐 07:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also performed a cursory search under "Elijah's prayer" but likewise didn't find anything immediately compelling. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have actually found the Jewish Encyclopedia to be quite limited and even profoundly unreliable when discussing various topics of Jewish ritual and law. In their article "Aliens," for example, opinions contradicting the decided law are presented without challenge, the entire topic of the Noahide laws is never mentioned once, and there are absolutely no citations to any of the Jewish legal codes, or even to the Talmud, despite the obvious context of Jewish law. They have no entry at all for the major Psalm 145 known as "Ashrei," the centerpiece of Pesukei dezimra in the daily Shacharit service. For the Shirat Hayam, which they call the "Song of Moses," its use in daily prayer is never mentioned, and their discussion deals inordinately with its style rather than its substance: "striking originality of form," "The poet was also an artist." (What?) Then, without once even touching a single rabbinical source like Shulchan Aruch, Rashi or Talmud, they present without challenge their extraordinary, grand unilateral conclusion that Moses could not have authored it - despite the article's title! I much prefer Chabad.org, which is consistently grounded in actual Jewish practice and sources, and whose editors ensure a much more accurate portrayal of topics in Jewish tradition. Musashiaharon (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Encyclopedia is a century old, so it's not the most up to date, but it references many obscure topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not even a question of up-to-date. Patach Eliyahu's role in prayer predates the Encyclopedia Judaica by centuries. If it mentions a handful of obscure topics, that's great, but there are clearly many gaping holes. Musashiaharon (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody said the Jewish Encyclopedia was authoritative for matters of Orthodox Jewish law or Talmudic interpretation of practice. And I'm sure, where inaccurate, we should not rely on it for facts that are out-of-date, I just offered it as an example of a generally reliable work of scholarship for history and facts that we might want in Wikipedia. Your critique of its description of the poet's literary style seems to presuppose that it should be responsa, which it is not. It's a historical reference work. I think the article has demonstrated notability based on what you posted, even if the cites are mostly all to religious type works. Andre🚐 17:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ashrei notably has both scholarly mentions and references to both the Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer and Jewish Liturgy: A comprehensive history - can entries for this not be found there? If there is an entire Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer, surely that would mention this prayer? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The somewhat grandiosely-named Encyclopedia of Jewish Prayer is only a single volume 454 pages long. Compare that with my Tehillat Hashem prayerbook without commentary or translation, which is 743 pages of much denser Hebrew. Further, that encyclopedia does not cover Arizal, Italian, Yemenite, or the chasidic Sepharad (distinguishable from Sephardi) rites. That "encyclopedia" is far from comprehensive, so I would not be surprised if it only discussed the sections in general terms. Jewish Liturgy: A comprehensive history is likewise hardly "comprehensive" at all, only 501 pages in a single volume. I would expect to find Patach Eliyahu/Petichat Eliyahu in books about Sephardi or Chabad chasidic prayer in particular, in books about Kabbalistic meditations, commentaries on the Tikkunei Zohar, chasidic mystical discourses, and so on. I have produced a list of some of those below. Musashiaharon (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is anyone who can read Hebrew capable of providing a quote from a source that actually stands up the key claims, such as "Most Sephardim recite Patach Eliyahu every morning as part of the order for the morning blessings before Shacharit." I would note that this prayer is not part of Template:Jewish prayers, and is not mentioned at Shacharit, Jewish prayer or List of Jewish prayers and blessings, so this prayer is consistently omitted from most key pages about Jewish prayer. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are some proof of its use.
 * It's present in the online siddur for Edot HaMizrach hosted on Sefaria, in Weekday Shacharit.
 * "I also found this prayer in the Siddur Nahar Shalom by Rabbi Shalom Sharabi (...p. 235), and there he placed the Patach Eliyahu at the beginning of the [prayer] order of the day, and after the L'sheim Yichud of accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven etc., and finishes Patach Eliyahu before laying the tefillin[....] Likewise Rabbi Yaakov Emden in his Siddur Kol Yaakov wrote (ch. Noveh Tzadikim): 'Prayer: Before prayer, recite Tikkunei HaZohar [Patach Eliyahu], which is a segula for the acceptance of the prayer.' See there. Also, in the Siddur Chesed L'Avraham (p. 108b) it instructs that 'it is proper to habitually to recite it, on weekdays and Shabbats.' So too have I found it in the Siddur of the Ari[zal] [as compiled] by R. Asher bar Shlomo Zalman Margoliot (p. 236a). It is likewise in the prayerbook for the congregations of Constantine and Italy (Machzor for Rosh Hashanah 5699 p. 27), and there it places Patach Eliyahu each and every service, this being in order to support and aid the opening of the heart in the awe of Hashem the Pure One; and one says before this the verse 'Viy'hi noam,' etc. See there. Also at the beginning of the siddur by the author of the Tanya, one will find that he corrected and explained the siddur according to his [legal and kabbalistic] opinion, writing that it should customarily be before the afternoon prayer of Shabbat eve. See there. Also, the great R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai wrote in Moreh B'Etzba (sect. 10 end of ch. 332) in his brilliant prose: 'Upon entering the synagogue, does one not immediately pronounce Petichat Eliyahu HaNavi from the holy Tikkunei HaZohar? Our holy rabbanan received a tradition regarding it, that it is auspicious for the acceptance of prayer.' Similar to this have I found in the Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chayim, sec. 267): 'There are those who recite, prior to the mincha prayer of Shabbat eve, the Psalm of the Four Who Must Give Thanks [Psalms 107], and Patach Eliyahu from the Tikkunim [...]" ~ Merkavot Argaman vol. 2 p.26
 * Musashiaharon (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This CAN NOT BE DELETED. It is a major work and prayer. It has a Hebrew Wikipedia and many books on it like and  How can you even think of deleting something so big?!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by יהואש (talk • contribs) 14:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * because we have no links to prove it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added some sources to the article. There are many more sources that discuss the Patach Eliyahu that could be added as well, although most are, understandably, in Hebrew. Musashiaharon (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * is an entire book interpreting it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by יהואש (talk • contribs) 14:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you mind doing some rough translating of the titles and publication info on the notable Hebrew language works on this? Andre🚐 21:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Here are some sources:
 * Pardes Rimonim is a classic Kabbalistic work written in the 1500s.
 * This mystical work of Jewish law and lore was written for the layman around the turn of the 20th century. It is held authoritative by Sephardi Jews, and there have been many publishers.
 * There are many more. Musashiaharon (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Musashiaharon, you may want to make an explicit keep !vote for the record to make it clear to the closer.--Jahaza (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Musashiaharon (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me how many of these are reliable, secondary sources - it seems like a lot are either primary religious texts or secondary religious exegesis that would still fall short of true secondary analysis from the point of view of writing encyclopedic statements about the prayer. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If on a scientific topic we were to disregard scientific sources, all we'd be left with is less-reliable, outsider sources. Same with mathematics, same with sociology. It's ridiculous, on a religious topic, to disregard religious sources. It's a double standard that would lead to reducing the quality of Wikipedia. And if all you need is evidence of usage in prayer, or similar, not all the sources need to be in-depth analyses, although the numerous maamorim provide that in spades. Musashiaharon (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of scholars of a religion that write about religions independently of the subjective views of its practitioners, and if a subject is of serious merit, it has usually been picked up by a few of these. There are many prayers; only a few merit encyclopedia entries. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By that standard, only non-Americans would have permission to comment on American history and customs. Only non-scientists could be cited on scientific topics. What utter stupidity. Besides, all writers are subjective, and outsiders most of all, having the least immersion and the most narrow lens into the field. The most accurate and important opinion for understanding a primary source is that of peers immersed within the same field. That is why papers go through peer review. We do not require rabbis to write an article on Islam, or atheists to write an article on the eucharist. Their particular brand of subjectivity and lack of background on the subject are reasons to doubt and reject them on those topics, rather than require them. For a prayer to be noteworthy, we must simply establish that laypeople or dabblers are curious about it, and that multiple scholarly sources exist discussing it as a well-known topic of importance. The existence of online articles and audio classes about the prayer targeted to non-clergy and an English-speaking audience is an indication that it is noteworthy. And I have shown that a plethora of independent scholarly sources from different countries and centuries from the original source exist discussing it. That should be sufficient. Musashiaharon (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I merely mentioned, as an observation, that most serious religious subjects would at least have been mentioned by scholars of religion, not that those were the only sources that could be used in such an article. My original question was simply about the nature of the selection of the sources, as they are all in Hebrew, and none are obviously academic. If you are offensive again, I will report you. Read WP:NPA and remain civil. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is, in fact, an English source on the list above. Here's two more sources in English, after my signature. Jahaza (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jahaza: I think the Jewish Agency is just about as systemically biased a publisher as one can imagine short of tipping over into full unreliability - religious publishers are not exactly the way one would ideally go here, but the Steinsaltz works looks good in principle. Do you actually have access? How is the coverage of the subject? You've cited pages 159-200 - is that a dedicated chapter? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand accusing them of bias in the field of politics, which you tend to write about, based on your user page. But this is about a passage used in prayerbooks, written by their Department for Torah Education. What's there to be contentious about? Musashiaharon (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a dedicated chapter on Patach Eliyahu:
 * Patach Eliyahu—Elijah Began
 * The Tikkunei Zohar opens with two introductions. The second of these describes a convocation of sages (both living and dead), of whom one, Elijah the Prophet, is invited to deliver the opening address.
 * His statement, a brief description of the basic principles of kabbalah, has become a classic text, recited by many as part of the daily or weekly prayer services[....]
 * The Text [...]
 * Commentary [...]
 * Based on my Hebrew sources and other summaries of Kabbalah like Aryeh Kaplan, his explanation is accurate and consistent with normative Kabbalah. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not apply such adjectives to people. I criticize ideas. Especially ones which insultingly claim there is no scholarship worth citing among rabbis on Jewish topics. Or, ideas that religious topics within Judaism are only significant if academia, with their tiny Judaic studies departments, have decided take the time write about them, instead of their distractions with non-theological topics. Despite vast libraries with thousands of books on Jewish law and theology, I never saw any course in my time at the University of California devoted to their study. To this day, there is no such course in their catalog. In my father's time, there was a course on Chovot HaLevavot at Harvard, but no more. Nowadays for textual studies, Harvard has barely one class on Mishneh Torah, and one overview course that crams together the Siddur, Talmud, Rashi and the Haggadah. In contrast, a standard yeshiva presumes that its applicants have been learning these since middle school, and focuses on their commentaries and on other works from classical periods to the modern day. The scholarship in yeshivas is so much greater in depth and breadth, that comparing their prodigious output to that of a university Judaic studies program is a joke. For example, in my personal library I have Lehavin Lehispalel which goes to four volumes and more than 2000 pages discussing for the layman the chasidic interpretation of [some of] the weekday morning prayers alone. On the Haggadah, often printed without commentary in a slender pamphlet, the Lubavitcher Rebbe's commentary spans two hefty volumes totaling 1080 pages, covering laws, touching on history, comparing with other rites, and discussing the mystical and practical meanings. For the blessings on food, commonly printed in under 10 pages, as a small section of the prayerbook, I have Biur Seder Bircas Hanehenin in two volumes spanning over 500 pages discussing the procedural laws of the blessings and noting slight differences in rite. University Judaic studies departments don't produce that kind of comprehensive work. The yeshiva is in a completely different class. That is why I reacted as I did, when you proposed to invalidate all rabbinic sources. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your meaning was clear. As is your ironic implication that I am the one being insulting above. You're treading a thin line. But more importantly, most of the above is irrelevant. I don't care how limited the scholarship in California and Harvard is. I also didn't suggest, at any point, that rabbis were not qualified to write on this subject - I just enquired about the state of the sources above, and whether they could be considered true secondary, non-exegetical, non-confessional sources. However, I do find it surprising, if this prayer is as significant as claimed, that not a single paper has ever been submitted in the history of scholarship discussing either the prayer, its literary origins or earliest extant texts, its diction/linguistic composition or any of the other numerous forms of secondary analysis typically performed on religious literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have checked Steinsaltz and of course all of my own sources, and all are commenting about Patach Eliyahu, mentioning it by title or citing its content before describing it, qualifying them as secondary sources. The portions cited are not inventing new interpretations, but rather summarizing intervening works by other scholars, which gives context on the topic. Even in the places that the Hebrew works do present new ideas, they spring so naturally from their well-sourced references and (most importantly) became so authoritative and normative by adoption by later rabbis that they would also be reliable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. (I just have not cited them yet because they are too technical for the scope of the article we have right now; how Patach Eliyahu gets used doesn't require that level of innovation.) With their abundance of sources, these Hebrew works function as bibliographies in their own right, and I frequently begin my research by remembering a reference in them, looking that up, and seeing what primary and secondary sources they cite.
 * I think academia writes so little about Patach Eliyahu because they mostly concern themselves with broad strokes of history and therefore hyperfocus on the traditional two main parts of the service: the amidah and the shema. Those have the longest history of inclusion in prayer, and are the easiest to write about. Aside from that, literature junkies get attracted to the poetry of the High Holiday piyyutim. That accounts for the bulk of the academic papers I've read on Jewish liturgy, ignoring the ones concerning feminism, relations with non-Jews, forced comparisons with modern sociopolitical philosophy and with other religions, and edits to the siddur by liberal Jewish movements. The perspective of academicians is largely warped to focus on how Judaism relates to them and their values, and by lack of fluency in the source languages.
 * The result is predictable. Judaism qua Judaism, and even kabbalah in its original Jewish context eschewing references to other religions and philosophies, using the texts themselves, is rarely examined at all, let alone in-depth. So, topics of great importance to practicing Jews, like the kosher requirement of bishul yisrael or the central practical missive of birur nitzutzot in kabbalah and chassidus, are given only brief mention in academic literature if at all. There are only a handful of academic researchers in the world with the background and chops to do topics like Patach Eliyahu, and they are far from having produced enough content to guarantee success when doing an Ebsco search. The vast majority review mostly English sources, which themselves do not deal with the original texts except through other English sources from 50 years ago. That's roughly when academic interest in kabbalah began: after Gershom Scholem and Martin Buber introduced it to the English-speaking world. Jews were no longer pariahs like before WWII and its horrors, and interest in mysticism was spiking in the hippie generation. But since then, with social issues and politics cannibalizing other pursuits in Jewish studies, original research on basic topics in Judaism and Kabbalah seems to have stagnated.
 * In contrast, rabbinic works on tefilah and kabbalah have been expanding in periodic leaps for centuries. The past 70 years have been especially notable, since the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe began sending out shluchim and reviving the Hebrew printing industry in the late 1940s, which his successor explosively expanded since 1951. Musashiaharon (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing an assessment of the sources listed earlier above - that was all that was ever asked for, before the reactionary meta commentary started. It sounds like we have what we need: something that could not be readily said at the start of this process, though it would be good if anyone else with access to any of these sources could confirm. AGF y'all. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on my Hebrew sources and other summaries of Kabbalah like Aryeh Kaplan, his explanation is accurate and consistent with normative Kabbalah. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not apply such adjectives to people. I criticize ideas. Especially ones which insultingly claim there is no scholarship worth citing among rabbis on Jewish topics. Or, ideas that religious topics within Judaism are only significant if academia, with their tiny Judaic studies departments, have decided take the time write about them, instead of their distractions with non-theological topics. Despite vast libraries with thousands of books on Jewish law and theology, I never saw any course in my time at the University of California devoted to their study. To this day, there is no such course in their catalog. In my father's time, there was a course on Chovot HaLevavot at Harvard, but no more. Nowadays for textual studies, Harvard has barely one class on Mishneh Torah, and one overview course that crams together the Siddur, Talmud, Rashi and the Haggadah. In contrast, a standard yeshiva presumes that its applicants have been learning these since middle school, and focuses on their commentaries and on other works from classical periods to the modern day. The scholarship in yeshivas is so much greater in depth and breadth, that comparing their prodigious output to that of a university Judaic studies program is a joke. For example, in my personal library I have Lehavin Lehispalel which goes to four volumes and more than 2000 pages discussing for the layman the chasidic interpretation of [some of] the weekday morning prayers alone. On the Haggadah, often printed without commentary in a slender pamphlet, the Lubavitcher Rebbe's commentary spans two hefty volumes totaling 1080 pages, covering laws, touching on history, comparing with other rites, and discussing the mystical and practical meanings. For the blessings on food, commonly printed in under 10 pages, as a small section of the prayerbook, I have Biur Seder Bircas Hanehenin in two volumes spanning over 500 pages discussing the procedural laws of the blessings and noting slight differences in rite. University Judaic studies departments don't produce that kind of comprehensive work. The yeshiva is in a completely different class. That is why I reacted as I did, when you proposed to invalidate all rabbinic sources. Musashiaharon (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your meaning was clear. As is your ironic implication that I am the one being insulting above. You're treading a thin line. But more importantly, most of the above is irrelevant. I don't care how limited the scholarship in California and Harvard is. I also didn't suggest, at any point, that rabbis were not qualified to write on this subject - I just enquired about the state of the sources above, and whether they could be considered true secondary, non-exegetical, non-confessional sources. However, I do find it surprising, if this prayer is as significant as claimed, that not a single paper has ever been submitted in the history of scholarship discussing either the prayer, its literary origins or earliest extant texts, its diction/linguistic composition or any of the other numerous forms of secondary analysis typically performed on religious literature. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have checked Steinsaltz and of course all of my own sources, and all are commenting about Patach Eliyahu, mentioning it by title or citing its content before describing it, qualifying them as secondary sources. The portions cited are not inventing new interpretations, but rather summarizing intervening works by other scholars, which gives context on the topic. Even in the places that the Hebrew works do present new ideas, they spring so naturally from their well-sourced references and (most importantly) became so authoritative and normative by adoption by later rabbis that they would also be reliable sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. (I just have not cited them yet because they are too technical for the scope of the article we have right now; how Patach Eliyahu gets used doesn't require that level of innovation.) With their abundance of sources, these Hebrew works function as bibliographies in their own right, and I frequently begin my research by remembering a reference in them, looking that up, and seeing what primary and secondary sources they cite.
 * I think academia writes so little about Patach Eliyahu because they mostly concern themselves with broad strokes of history and therefore hyperfocus on the traditional two main parts of the service: the amidah and the shema. Those have the longest history of inclusion in prayer, and are the easiest to write about. Aside from that, literature junkies get attracted to the poetry of the High Holiday piyyutim. That accounts for the bulk of the academic papers I've read on Jewish liturgy, ignoring the ones concerning feminism, relations with non-Jews, forced comparisons with modern sociopolitical philosophy and with other religions, and edits to the siddur by liberal Jewish movements. The perspective of academicians is largely warped to focus on how Judaism relates to them and their values, and by lack of fluency in the source languages.
 * The result is predictable. Judaism qua Judaism, and even kabbalah in its original Jewish context eschewing references to other religions and philosophies, using the texts themselves, is rarely examined at all, let alone in-depth. So, topics of great importance to practicing Jews, like the kosher requirement of bishul yisrael or the central practical missive of birur nitzutzot in kabbalah and chassidus, are given only brief mention in academic literature if at all. There are only a handful of academic researchers in the world with the background and chops to do topics like Patach Eliyahu, and they are far from having produced enough content to guarantee success when doing an Ebsco search. The vast majority review mostly English sources, which themselves do not deal with the original texts except through other English sources from 50 years ago. That's roughly when academic interest in kabbalah began: after Gershom Scholem and Martin Buber introduced it to the English-speaking world. Jews were no longer pariahs like before WWII and its horrors, and interest in mysticism was spiking in the hippie generation. But since then, with social issues and politics cannibalizing other pursuits in Jewish studies, original research on basic topics in Judaism and Kabbalah seems to have stagnated.
 * In contrast, rabbinic works on tefilah and kabbalah have been expanding in periodic leaps for centuries. The past 70 years have been especially notable, since the 6th Lubavitcher Rebbe began sending out shluchim and reviving the Hebrew printing industry in the late 1940s, which his successor explosively expanded since 1951. Musashiaharon (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing an assessment of the sources listed earlier above - that was all that was ever asked for, before the reactionary meta commentary started. It sounds like we have what we need: something that could not be readily said at the start of this process, though it would be good if anyone else with access to any of these sources could confirm. AGF y'all. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources cited by Musashiaharon, plus Sholom D. Schneerson, Hagahot Ledibur Hamaschil Patach Eliyahu - 5658, Kehot Publication Society: 1981.--Jahaza (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Musashiaharon and Jahaza. Andre🚐 17:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - as expanded, the article provides the reliable and verifiable sources necessary to demonstrate that the notability standard has been met. Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 2 September 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.