Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:43, 21 September 2007

AJOP

AJOP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nothing sourced, and site reads like an advert. Reading the edit history shows a user of ajop613 heavily modifying the article (which reads much better than it did at first) but it still reads like an article violating WP:SPAM. What I would like is either for this to be deleted or for the article to be sourced from external sources. I think an org like this can be on Wiki it just needs to be according to Wiki guidelines. Yossiea 16:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yossiea 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless it gets wikified. Yossiea 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - As in all of these cases, there needs to be an assertion of notability supported by at least two sources that have to be independent of the organization and at least plausibly reliable -- can't be a blog or similar. If this isn't arguably met the article doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages; if the sources are impeccable it's clear it does; we can discuss gray area. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That strengthens the AFD because there aren't two external sources in the article. Yossiea 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It has more then 2 independent sources--יודל 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not in the article. Yossiea 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, very known and active org. It is indeed sourced by a whole list of proper independent third party external links, and if u make a Google search u see how popular and notable this org is. Especialy when the user who opened this discussion agrees its a notable org and 3 other users have allready edited it it should further be edited and updated not deleted--יודל 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As Shirahadasha pointed out, there needs to be an assertion of notability supported by at least two sources that have to be independent of the organization and at least plausibly reliable -- can't be a blog or similar. Until that point, the article can't be on Misplaced Pages. Yossiea 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You have given no real rationale for deletion, if u agree openly and honestly that this org is notable, you cannot get it deleted on your claim that it reads like spam, please help me fix the language and provide the more sources, it is currently sourced quite heavily and far exceeding the average Judaism related articles in this regards.--יודל 19:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your sources are not valid. The first one is from an internal AJOP person. The second one again, is just a link to a software package sold by AJOP. The article has NO external sources about AJOP. Yossiea 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that individual isn't working with AJOP for ten years now, so he is serving for the source we need him to show u that people indeed do call this subject with the way it is written in the article. And to the point, Third party online business selling all kinds of merchandise is enough reliable and independent to cite as proof that there work is being sold out there and does exist. In Capitalism a subject is always considered notable if a reliable buisness is seling its products. And this subject does make waves economically so the proofs should not be discounted as biased because they make some money of the work of this subject, while u yourself claim that they are indeed Notable! --יודל 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. Furthermore, this is an AFD discussion, not the article's talk page. Yossiea 19:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please let others decide who makes here more sense. Please resist turning to personal insults in order to get this article deleted, You yourself have declared this subject enough notable for a encyclopedia and i ask you instead of getting it deleted because it fails some standard. Rather fix it. Thanks.--יודל 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Avruch 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Spammy and no independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Baltimore Jewish Times not considered an enough independent source for you?--יודל 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, even a simple google search shows it is notable enough, the article could use some improvement and expansion, which of course can't happen until it is unprotected. --MPerel 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because this is a very notable Orthodox organization that has been around for over twenty years and it was the first organization of its kind (and still is) that was based on uniting and enhancing the "kiruv" (Jewish outreach) work by bringing together in North America all Orthodox groups involved with the Baal teshuva movement. It is the only organization not affiliated with Chabad that is recognized by virtually all Orthodox kiruv workers and professionals as having served to unite them, particularly throuh its conventions. It was founded through a multi-million dollar grant from the AVI CHAI Foundation and at its annual conventions almost every major non-Chabad "Kiruv" rabbi has been a featured speaker and presenter. If it the article has faults, as do many articles when they are first written, the nominator, in this case User:Yossiea could have brought this article to the attention of other Judaism editors at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Judaism and there is no doubt that he would have been told that AJOP is a WP:NOTABLE organization that is indeed WP:CITEd on the web and many printed sources. AJOP has also published its own books and tapes. Its website at http://www.ajop.com/ introduces the organization well, and there are many Google references to this organization that make this nomination highly questionable. IZAK 02:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• NOTE: It is ridiculous to have a vote on this article when it has been protected for four days . How and why did it get blocked? This is not the way to do business! Kindly get someone to unblock it. What's going on here? IZAK 02:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, it has now been unprotected . This should not be happening. IZAK 03:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Yossiea. Fails WP:V, WP:ORG. Zero independant sources. First reference is a Misplaced Pages article, which obviously doesn't fly. Second reference is the organazation website, also no good. Third reference is WP:SPAM, which is not that great either. The fourth reference is a website that is under construction. Wow! Getting better! The fifth reference, the Baltimore Jewish Times, merely lists the address of the organazation. A no-brainer for deletion. --Yeshivish 04:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --LAZY 1L 04:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product)
• AfD debates