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. John254 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This organization's article on wikipedia is the result of recentism. The subject has his little notability and is a "one event" matter. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article may need some restructuring and changes, but the subject seems notable. It is not just a 'four-story structure', but a settler community which has a lot of media coverage right now. I may change my mind if convincing arguments to the contrary are presented. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the many concerns I have with this article is recentism. All of this recent media coverage is over one event, the possession of a household. The wider importance of this event to Israel, Judaism and Religion has yet to be explained! As such, this article is about one recent event that has recieved some media coverage. Presently, I do not believe this house has enough notabilty for an article of its own. I am open to changing my mind as well, but at present, this article is about one recent event. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recentism is usually not a reason to delete an article. With the amount of media coverage this event got, I think it would be enough for its own article, and don't mind the article about this house (around which the event is based) being that article. The fact that it's a somewhat unique settler community reinforces the notability of the structure itself. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of references. See he:בית השלום for the Hebrew Wikipedia's article, which is fairly long and has lots of photos and references. Arguably automatically notable both as a settlement and as a university-level teaching institution. Would someone please add latitude and longitude to the article? -- Eastmain (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please explain more about the "university-level teaching institution?" This is the first I have heard of this information. What university is it related to? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, in what way is this building a "settlement?" I have not heard this term applied to this building in any mainstream media. Could you please explain? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of references, spreading over the period of well over a year, so not a WP:NOT#NEWS case. Passes WP:N easily. Nsk92 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this provision is applicable here. We are talking about a fairly high-profile controversy that has been covered in the national and international media over the period of about 2 years, that ended up in the Israeli Supreme Court and that required involvement of the Israeli Prime Minister. I do not believe that this qualifies under "indiscriminate collection of information". Nsk92 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one event - this article is about one house that is having a court case issue that has recieved some media attention. This article is about nothing more. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent that is correct, although the event here is a bit difficult to define and the house itself is the center of controversy. However, even with single events, they become notable if they receive significant coverage over a prolonged period of time; that is what makes an event notable and worthy of an article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- the subject of this article has been covered extensively in reliable sources. I'm satified that it's sufficiently noteworthy to be included here. Reyk _YO! 23:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been covered for one event. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not aware of any policy that sets out a minimum number of notable events a subject must be involved with. Reyk _YO! 23:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So for what is it notable? Aside from some coverage of a current event, there is no lasting notability. This is only a passing news story, and no reasons have been provided to prove otherwise. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Passing news story? The earliest source is from March of last year and the latest is from four days ago- thirteen substantial articles over a period of almost two years is not merely "passing" media interest. It's a clear demonstration of notability. Reyk _YO! 05:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nsk92 explained it well. There might be room to merge it into something else though - it currently feels quite inflated with fluff. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article on the Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron already mentions Beit HaShalom - a merge to this article would be appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly notable per sources but needs a major cleanup to comply with WP:NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to the main Hebron article. There is enough room there for this report about a notable building. IZAK (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2008 (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.