Content deleted Content added
Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) |
Phoenix B 1of3 (talk | contribs) →International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network: traunch it |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:I.E. news coverage shows the group's importance and the article written by a member and possibly its own site gives details. This is what is normal for most political activist groups here. No reason to treat this one differently. [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] ([[User talk:Steve Dufour|talk]]) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC) |
:I.E. news coverage shows the group's importance and the article written by a member and possibly its own site gives details. This is what is normal for most political activist groups here. No reason to treat this one differently. [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] ([[User talk:Steve Dufour|talk]]) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' since noteworthy and update including newer news articles. ''[[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]]'' 11:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' since noteworthy and update including newer news articles. ''[[User:Carolmooredc|CarolMooreDC]]'' 11:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''DELETE''' I am an inclusionist on many things, but this is anti-semetic, should not be kept. – [[User: Phoenix B 1of3|Phoenix B 1of3]] [[User talk: Phoenix B 1of3|(talk)]] 17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:58, 16 October 2011
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
- International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CORP in that there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. —Biosketch (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I found a number of news references and at least one article here written specifically about the organization. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. While appearing in a generally reliable source, The Register-Guard, this editorial is not independent of the subject, as the author is affiliated with IJAN. --Lambiam 14:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Notable organisation. An organisation that merits 647,000 Google hits can hardly be described as receiving "no significant coverage". IJAN has been the subject of an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons, signed by 27 MPs[1]; it has been mentioned in the Jerusalem Post[2], Haaretz[3], the Glasgow Herald[4], the Miami Herald[5] and many more reliable sources. No case for deletion RolandR (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Off-hand mentions in newspaper articles and opinion columns don't make an organization notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep WP:I don't like it (because I would rather not see a nuclear war killing millions of people which is what will probably happen if Arabs do not learn to live with [the imperfect as well] Israel) but a Google search of recent news gave 10 stories about its recent activities. Clearly considered an important group, even if there is not an in-depth article online. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I.E. news coverage shows the group's importance and the article written by a member and possibly its own site gives details. This is what is normal for most political activist groups here. No reason to treat this one differently. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep since noteworthy and update including newer news articles. CarolMooreDC 11:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- DELETE I am an inclusionist on many things, but this is anti-semetic, should not be kept. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)