Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sde Tzofim Yeshiva


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 08:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sde Tzofim Yeshiva

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Certainly unencyclopediac; just short of patent nonsense but I'm not quite sure enough of the technical details to be sure. Also, text appears to be copied from http://sdetzofimfund.blogspot.com/2008/06/sde-tzofim-is-community-where-baalei.html Robinh (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

the article at sdetzofimfund.blogspot.com is from the newspaper "yated neeman" as is the article here. for those involved in judaism it is a worthy entry. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.42.137 (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete Does not meet WP:ORG and WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral. The article isn't patent nonsense; rather, it is written in Yeshivish, or at least a form of English with many of the key words being either transliterated Hebrew or Yiddish. This is unsuitable for the general English-speaking audience of Wikipedia, but the article could be revised to be in standard English. In addition, the article's tone is overly promotional with comments such as "Yeshiva Sde Tzofim has chosen to address this problem in a most innovative, wonderful way". I take no position as to whether the school is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly promotional in tone, and very likely incapable of being rewritten to be both balanced and properly sourced. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2009 (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.