Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC)


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is cross-wiki-spam for a travel agency (they mainly sell holidays in Israel combined with bible lessons). In the german-language wikipedia the deletion is already being discussed and we thereby found lots of false assertions in this blantand advertising. For example the ad claims 150 Evangelikal pastors were brought by the CJCUC to Israel. The source says that 30 (!) were invited by an Israeli ministry. Notability isn´t given as well since all press-sources only marginally mention the CJCUC. The subject of the coverage is never the CJCUC itself. And User:Omert33 was banned from german-language wikipedia because of insults in the discussion. Weissbier (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 23.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 10:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sir, your claim is unjustified and unfounded. CJCUC is a well-known, well-rooted and highly respected institution which is known throughout the world. I ask that you not remove the article as it would be a mistake. I have stumbled upon countless other articles which provide an infinitely lesser value than this article which only strives to shed light on a much needed topic and institution. Keep. --Omer Toledano (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 21:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 09:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)  IZAK (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N. I don't understand the nominator's rationale or his assertion that this is just a "travel agency". I added several reliable sources to back up the claims; this is a verifiable, active, and, may I say, controversial interfaith organization in Israel. The page only needs some editing to remove the promotional tone for the organization. Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I see. You guys are overstrained to a) understand what I write (may be my bad english) and b) to check the sources yourself to see that the "articel" blantantly lies in most points. Well, thats not my problem. So keep your travel-agency-advertising if you like it so much... Weissbier (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) P.S.: And since I am just a heathen and not into religion, I only dislike dishonest advertising. What them christians or jews do is rather dull for me.
 * Keep Despite the breathless allegations made in the nomination, the article I see includes plenty of the reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above reasoning. Plenty of third party sources to back up claims. Tinton5 (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep because the article is written in WP:NPOV and has sufficient WP:V & WP:RS making it WP:N. The nominator's objections boil down to a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT which is not a reason to delete. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of above. Plenty of third party sources to back up claims, which I checked individually (including Ministry's) and then assisted the article's translation into --Monozigote (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD discussions, and your responses, need to be based on WP policies and if need be one may point out faulty logic or assumptions of users, but at no time should anyone do what you have now done with this latest gratuitous offensive pejorative comment that clearly violates WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL as well as inciting WP:BATTLEGROUND. Kindly edit or remove this last comment or you may well face penalties at WP:AN/I. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. After cleaning up the cruft, assertions, and peacock language, I think there is something left to keep, especially in light of the sources.  It's meh - not my thing - but it seems to be barely notable. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2014 (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.