Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaverim (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 was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chaverim

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Admirable groups, certainly, but not notable; the article has zero reliable sources and almost no secondary sources, and I couldn't find significant coverage searching on my own. (The only coverage I could find that wasn't trivial and wasn't about one of the billion other things called Chaverim actually used the term in error, meaning Shomrim.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References added. As I mentioned in the first AFD, the organization's name is usually spelled Chaveirim in the Jewish press, which is where all the references are hiding. Yoninah (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I searched on that spelling as well, and still didn't come up with significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources you have added are either not actually reliable news sources, are trivial mentions (often in the same breath as a number of other organizations), or are routine announcements looking for volunteers or advertising events. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an Orthodox Jewish communal organization which does not seek publicity as a matter of course, you are simply not going to find full-blown write-ups in the New York Times unless something big happens, as the NYT wrote up Shomrim after the murder of Leiby Kletzky. I have provided descriptions from The New York Times, Baltimore Sun, The Jewish Press, Yeshiva World News, The Lakewood Scoop, and matzav.com, as well as websites for every Chaverim organization, and you still don't think it's sourced? Come on. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have provided are, as I've said, trivial, routine, or unreliable. I'm also surprised that you consider "You really expect to find significant coverage?" a defense of the group's notability. Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (ie. no matter how nice a website a Chaverim organization has, it can't attest notability, because anyone can make a website). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some awards that the Lakewood Chaveirim have received, with refs. Yoninah (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to the multiple, independent sources quoted, I'd also like to note that this page gets 350 to 400 hits per month. Yoninah (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the excellent work this organization does (and I myself have been the recipient of their help on more than one occassion) I do not think that they pass WP:NONPROFIT. Unlike Hatzolah, which is both (inter)national in scope and covered by multiple third-party sources, Chaveirim is (currently) at best regional and has received little attention outside of local web pages and word-of-mouth. If they continue to grow, they may be notable enough in the future. Avi (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing a encylopedic notability here. Sources nonwhithstanding. Joe407 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NONPROFIT The organization is international and also has branches across Israel under the name 'yedidim'. video ref added. --Shuki (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misinterpreting WP:NONPROFIT. That guideline is saying that a nonprofit organization must operate internationally to be notable, not that a type of local nonprofit organization in more than one country is notable. You'll notice that WP:NONPROFIT and WP:CLUB go to the same section - the argument you're making is like saying (to choose an example at random) "there is a ten-member Squirtle Fan Club in a local area of the United States and one in a local area of Japan, so Squirtle Fan Clubs are an international phenomenon deserving of a Wikipedia article." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because like Shomrim (volunteers) this is an equally valid and well-known organization typical of the American Haredi communities. User Yoninah (talk · contribs) has done a perfect job of upgrading the article with WP:RS and WP:CITE per Wikipedia requirements. IZAK (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's well covered by 3rd parties and nicely referenced.--Shmaltz (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been sufficiently updated where an AFD is no longer necessary. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I recommend that users actually look at the quality of the sources and not just the volume of the sources. A routine announcement advertising an upcoming event or calling for volunteers, a trivial mention of a Chaverim organization in a list of other organizations, or a website owned by a Chaverim group do not attest notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I can't disagree about the fact that the reliability as in WP:RS of the references is not the best.~~ However, the fact that there is so much talk about them at least shows that they are notable. BTW, to anyone that was ever locked out or left hanging with a flat tire and they came helping they ARE very notable and those count in the 10s if not 100s of thousands.--Shmaltz (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's...not a notability criterion. Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, not by anecdotal experience. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have gone thru the sources again now. There seems to be significant coverage and I am therefore rephrasing my above comment that I am disagreeing about the sources being in line with WP:RS. Look here and here.--Shmaltz (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Shmaltz - Yes, I looked at the sources. The NYPost article is a one-line mention in an article about Jewish groups getting a large chunk of the NYC budget. It is not an article about Chaverim. The NYT article is about Jewish life in Borough Park. Chaverim has a two sentence mention. In the 1500 word article Chaverim got as much coverage as the holiday of Sukkot did and I don't think that anyone would use this article as a source for the Succot article. Yes, these sources pass WP:RS but they are trivial. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is my understanding that notability as defined here has been met with those references.--Shmaltz (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no problem with the NYT or NYPost as sources. My view is that the mention is trivial. Please see WP:SIGCOV - first clause of the GNG. Joe407 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The GNG is not an exclusion of what's not notable, it is only a guideline on whats definitely notable.--Shmaltz (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK; at first I was impressed by the volume of sources that were dug up and added to this article. I just took a look at the sources a bit more indepth and I'm voting Delete on this. The two sources that are main-stream (non-jewish) media are super trivial mentions. The JP Kletzky article is also a trivial (one word) mention. The only real coverage I see (I'm discounting all the self-published stuff and the blogs) is this Jewish Press article. Call me silly but I'd like more than one article to establish WP:N and to place this org in a navbox of "Orginized Jewish life in the US". Joe407 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Latest additions cause the article to meet the necessary notability requirements.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.