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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete Irretrievably WP:POV religious screed. The article sets itself out as being about the organisation, but appears to be a WP:COATRACK for an extensive WP:OR religious screed, WP:SOAPBOXing the views held by members of the organisation. Mayalld (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per nom, and per WP:N. I must say this one of the very few articles I've seen for which there are zero online sources. -Samuel Tan 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original research is probably more appropriate as a delete reason than nn-group! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:OR, to put it mildly. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails verifiability and may be WP:HOAX A search here shows 2 hits both from Wikipedia. Artene50 (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 9 August 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.