Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Jews for a Just Peace

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. Mangojuice^talk 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

European Jews for a Just Peace

European Jews for a Just Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The organization this article is about lacks notability, and the article does not establish notability.

NB: The subject that is the focus of the supposed group, European Jews for a Just Peace, is a notable subject, but the organization is not notable. I would appreciate it if those who comment on this AfD focus on the organization, not the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep This group has lots of independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked all of the rsults, but at least the first 4 are not "independent coverage" - they are press release by European Jews for a Just Peace, their own web site, and open letters by the group. NoCal100 (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- I have no vote either way, but I just wanted to point out, looks like this AFD got posted twice on the AFD page. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment- A Google news search for European Jews for a Just Peace does not get a single hit [1]. A search in Ha'aretz, a fairly left leaning Israeli newspaper, that would likely cover any news about such a group if any such news existed, also showed no hits [2]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually a Google News search gets 37 hits if it's not restricted to the last month.[3] Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep What the group has to say has considerable notability. Reference to EJJP first appeared in anti-Zionism Feb.22, 2007 [4], about 9 months before it had its own article, now facing deletion. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The original description ’18 European Jewish groups’ was changed to ‘18 European Jewish pro-Palestinian peace groups’ on 27 Feb 2007[5], and it had been sitting quietly in that article since. Yesterday, it was edited to describe it with its own words [and give a basis for their stated beliefs][6], it became the object of several fast-paced reverts, with indications that talk would be required. The talk provided is this notification of AfD. It seems that ‘notability’ may not be the real or only reason for the AfD. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

CasualObserver, the article about European Jews for a Just Peace had not come to my intention before this morning, so I could not have nominated it before deletion before then. You seem to be insinuating bad faith on my part, which I do not much appreciate. You might want to reconsider what you have written about me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I didn't mention your name, why did you mention mine? As you are a heavy editor on the other page, I assumed that you had previously checked the noted links and refs, since that is considered good editorial practice; sorry for that. I believe that I have stated relevant facts for consideration in this AfD. If you understand something from these facts then that must be your faith. I will admit that the initiation of an AfD on a ‘mother article,’ rather than the stated desire for discussion indicated in edit summaries on another page, has stretched my AGF. Therefore, I have reconsidered and changed my previous post. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

CasualObserver, sorry about not replying earlier.

1. I consider referring to people by name good manners, and intend to continue that practice.
2. I do things my life in addition to edit Wikipedia, and do not necessarily bother to check all sources in an article for quality unless something draws my intention to them, as in this case.
3. To the best of my knowledge, any editor can initiate an AfD on a problematic article, if they have your permission, or not.
4. I am not particularly interested to know if you trust my good faith, and do not know why you are telling me about your WP:AGF problems here.
5. This AfD is the wrong place to discuss what you consider my deficiencies as an editor. If you think I have done something wrong, you have a right to take that to the appropriate Administrators Noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, I am similarly sorry for the tardy reply, just saw this.

1. I agree in the outside world, but at wiki one is supposed to discuss the topics, not the editors.

2. We all operate under similar constraints.

3. It is absolutely your right, as is mine to comment.

4. No comment.

5. I’m not doing that. You did what you thought was right; that is not wrong. Why would I even bother to do what you suggest?

Look, I took my best ‘keep’ shots early in the page and since, have been awaiting consensus to develop. As I note your continuing posts below, maybe that in-action is policy-appropriate for you also, but you started the page, I dunno. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable organization. I also believe the circumstances of this nomination are a bit unusual. CJCurrie (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) [modified 04:31, 20 November 2008]

You might want to suggest at least some reason why the nomination is inappropriate, and review WP:AGF, while you are at it. NoCal100 (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my remarks. CJCurrie (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• comment The article only seems to reference the organisation's website. Could those asserting its notability please add some references to WP:Reliable sources, so we can see that it is notable.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As requested, located here, however. A lexisnexis search of Major U.S. and World Publications for European Jews for a Just Peace (Search Details: You searched for: ("European Jews for a Just Peace") and DATE(>2000-01-01)), reveals these five RSs.

• The Independent (London), November 27, 2002, Wednesday. LETTER: PROMISE OF A FUN-FILLED DAY' BELIES A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS

• The New York Times, February 9, 2006 Thursday, Anglicans Vote to Divest From Concerns in Israel-Occupied Areas

…Some Jewish groups in the United States and Europe welcomed the church's decision. I think it is a powerful message, said Dan Judelson, secretary of European Jews for a Just Peace, which has called for Israel's immediate withdrawal from the occupied territories. It shows that people are not prepared to lie down and let the issue rest.…

• The Jerusalem Post, April 14, 2006, Friday, Divestment campaign seen losing steam

…Among the 19 groups signing the letter were Action Around Bethlehem Children with Disability the Amos Trust Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine Campaign Against the Arms Trade the Council for Arab-British Understanding European Jews for a Just Peace Friends of Sabeel UK International Committee Against House Demolitions Interpal Jewish Socialists' Group Jews for Justice for Palestinians Just Peace UK Labor Middle East Council Medical Aid for Palestinians Pax Christi and War on Want. ...

• BBC Monitoring Europe – Political, Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, November 14, 2006 Tuesday

European Jewish organization urges EU pressure on Israel Text of unattributed report, entitled "Jewish protest against Israel", report by Austrian newspaper Wiener Zeitung on 14 November Brussels/Vienna: The European Jews for a Just Peace (EJJP) association has appealed to the EU to take effective measures in order to make Israel respect international law. The military operations in Gaza have led to the oppression and persecution of the Palestinian population, the extent of which is intolerable, a press release of the executive committee of the association of 18 Jewish organizations in 10 European countries, including Austria, says. "As European citizens, we are not willing to keep silent about the crimes that are being committed against an imprisoned, besieged people, who have become the victim of Europe's history. As Jews we will not commit the same mistake that we have often accused those of who kept silent in view of crimes against humanity," the EJJP statement says. Source: Wiener Zeitung, Vienna, in German 14 Nov 06

• The Irish Times, July 5, 2008 Saturday, EU policy on Israel and the Palestinians SECTION: LETTERS; Pg. 15

I believe these qualify. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these are all reliable sources for this topic and there are many more. The topic (this organization) has more than enough coverage to meet WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the status of letters, but the other material looks fine. I now vote keep--Peter cohen (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Seeing some of the discussion below, I'm withdrawing my voe. I've put a comment on the article talk page suggesting people add references to reliable sources. If they can base the article on them, then I'll be convinced. otherwise...--Peter cohen (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Only as an aside, if letters wind up published in a reliable source they can be cited. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep As noted above, the group is certainly notable. I am concerned that the AfD was initiated after a number of editors started an edit-war in an apparent attempt to remove this group's statement from the article on Anti-Zionism. As others have commented, there is something odd about this sudden proposal. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• WP: Notability: Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail... All I see in these newspaper mentions (above) is the name of the group, without any discussion of the group at all, much less a detailed discussion. A few mentions of the name in newspapers does not constitute (in my understanding of WP guidelines) notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Taken altogether, the independent coverage is low key but wide and between all the sources, much detail can be gleaned from them. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, I note that you have not contradicted my observation that the news coverage, slight as it is, only mentions the name of the group, without any significant discussion of the group in detail. If that constitutes notability, I very much misunderstand WP:notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I meant to "contradict" your observation. Coverage is wide and taken altogether, yields a lot of meaningful detail. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have just raised the question on the Village Pump [7], since I could be wrong about notability guidelines. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. There's plenty of independent coverage to establish notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. As well as the sources quoted above there's this extensive coverage in Deutsche Welle [8][9] and the formation of the group is covered in the American Jewish Year Book 2004 [10]. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Deutsche Welle article seems nothing more than a mention of the name of the group, and does not address the subject directly in detail, as per WP: notability guidelines. American Jewish Year Book 2004 seems to have published the groups press release, without committing on it. That makes the group notable? It is puzzling to see so many editors find that so little is necessary to establish notability. No wonder that academics are so dismissive of Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The two Deutsche Welle articles are wholly about this group's activities, and do you really think that the American Jewish Committee, the publisher of the American Jewish Year Book, is in the business of spouting propaganda on behalf of a pro-Palestinian organisation? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, saying the Deutsche Welle article is about European Jews for a Just Peace is pretty imaginative, and factually incorrect. The name of the group is mentioned, without addressing the subject directly in detail, as per WP: Notability. As for the American Jewish Year Book 2004, that year it contained 704 pages, and apparently they include the press release of many new organizations every year. I do not see anything to indicate there was more than a press release. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ORG. There is very little evidence that this group is at all notable except. A few drive-by media references being passed off by other editors using adjectives (extensive??) that are at best misguided and at worst simply disingenuous - are you kidding me? Wikipedia deserves a better standard than that. Eusebeus (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Please Delete. I have no idea why there's such an uproar! I don't think that an article about this fascinating organization can currently be written based solely on reliable secondary sources, "mentions" notwithstanding. If and when it can be done, pretty please re-create, citing those sources. As soon as DW or whoever else does up a profile of the org., we can have an article about them. Full disclosure: I am a European Jew for a Just Peace. -- Y not? 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Request for clarification I'm sorry, but I can't make sense out of your recommendation. Does D mean Delete? Do you actually mean to say that articles cannot be based on reliable secondary sources? Please explain. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks for having another look at your recommendation and clarifying your prose, I appreciate it. Darkspots (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Clarified per your request, Mr. Spots. -- Y not? 17:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Enough independent mentions. I agree these need to be added to the article. No reflection on the AFD nomination, which I believe was done in good faith. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Of the 37 g-news hits, few, if any, are coverage of the organization. They therefore don't not meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:ORG. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The AfD is not concerned with the issues behind European Jews for a Just Peace, and the issue is not the value that some WP users may see in that group. The issue is the article. The article does nothing to establish the notability of its subject. Nor is there anything that has entered in the discussion to show that a level of notability can be established to justify the WP article. The article clearly does not meet WP:notability standards outlined in its guidelines: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2008 (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.