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. Although opinions are divided, the "delete" arguments are more persuasive. While the "keep" side cites a number of sources, the "delete" side has shown in some detail that these sources amount to passing mentions, insubstantial coverage or are otherwise not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The "keep" side has not rebutted that analysis. Sandstein 10:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost entirely SPS; other refs are passing mentions. a BEFORE search yielded not much more. This page is mostly a sea of name-dropping. Folks have been saying on the talk page since 2007 that this is just an advertisement for the organization. Time to go. Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If they're notable, I'm not seeing it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another one [3]] all the sources I brought is much more then name dropping.--Shrike (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike who are you trying to fool? The third source helped me confirm my suspicions: the first (and third) source's content for the SPME are copied from the organization's own website; that is a primary source. And as for the second, it is predominantly a quote from the CEO -- another primary source of information as promotional as the other two.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter this all secondary sources by different authors.The secondary source may use primary source as its see fit..--Shrike (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't? They copied word-for-word an advertisement from the organization's own website. That is in no way a secondary source of information.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But those sources are "Independent of the subject"--Shrike (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Copying material directly from the organization is the complete and total opposite of "independent of the subject".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the first source is a copy from their website and anyhow if its source not affiliated than its independent--Shrike (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly does not pass our general notability guideline. The sources, including the ones Shrike is trying to pass off as in-depth coverage, are just as Jytdog described them -- name-dropping. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as an advertising mechanism for an organization hence another reason why deletion is appropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:Jytdog Did you notify the original author of the article?--Shrike (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few hundred google-news hits. Quite a few book hits. 139 google scholar hits - mentioning them or referencing their studies (AUTHOR/PROF).Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"mentions" are not substantial discussion. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't all mentions. e.g. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. They are cited and mentioned alot - which makes finding in-depth sourcing of them harder.Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
to repeat, "cited and mentioned" is not substantial discussion. Looking at those links (links to Google Books have all been shortened and changed to US google from Israel google):
[11] - this is some document hosted on a wiki called "powerbase". not reliable.
[12] - ok source, but has a passing mention - a paragraph that gives their mission statement
[13] - this is not a source I would use. It is called "Israel's Nightmares: Palestinian and Muslim Zombies Haunting Israel" published by something called the "Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency" which appears to be dicey. It has one longish paragraph that briefly describes it and states its mission.
[14] - this is an OK book, "American Jewry's Challenge: Conversations Confronting the Twenty-first Century" published by Rowman & Littlefield. It has 2 paragraphs, one very short, and one a quote from the CEO saying what they do. Not substantial discussion.
[15] - source is OK, "The UnCivil University: Intolerance on College Campuses" again Rowman & Littlefield. The actual page linked to is the footnotes. The real discussion is here and is again a brief paragraph.
[16] - this is "American Jewish Year Book 2013: The Annual Record of the North American Jewish Communities" an OK source. This organization is one of many in a list of organizations, described in paragraph. A directory entry.
[17] - this is called "Defeat, Trauma, Lesson: Israel Between Life and Extinction" again published by Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency. This is the exact same content as "Israel's Nightmares" above. Exact. Same.
I will say, as I have said in past AfDs, that it is poor practice to throw up a bunch of links without actually looking at them. This wastes everyone else's time and is bullshitting. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is more hand-wavy search results. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jytdog although you assert that "Folks have been saying on the talk page since 2007 that this is just an advertisement for the organization." the fact is that the last time the talk page was edited, (the last time a comment was made) was in 2007. Several solid sources have been added since then, and they were on page when you arrived. A better move might have been to tag it for improvement. Moreover WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. I suggest that in the light of the sources found by User:Icewhiz you consider withdrawing what looks like an over hasty nomination. Also You're a very experienced editor, so it is odd that you have not notified the article creator of this AfD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Please describe the refs you are bringing. Notifying the creator is optional. Please feel free to do it if you like. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that you also did not add this to any lists. Nor did the first editor to comment. You were , of course, not required to do so, but the fact that you - a highly experienced editor - did not choose to add it to any of the obvious lists, chose not to notify the page creator, do not appear to have run a very thorough WP:BEFORE, and are now taking a WP:BATTLEGROUND-type defensive posture does give this AfD Perhaps it is merely a case of a hasty WP:BEFORE and a careless nomination that skipped the usual courtesies. But I/P is such highly fraught, BATTLEGROUND territory that I believe that we should all behave like Caesar's wife - who was required to be above suspicion when wading in to the Middle East.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY I added several very sound sources to the page, all of the sources I just added go beyond mere mentions. Many moreWP:RS exist and I hope that they will be added to the page, which can certainly be expanded based on solid sourcing that, as Icewhiz and Shrike demonstrate above, is not difficult to locate, even though searches are made somewhat more difficult by the many articles that mention SPME only briefly. I believe that the sources I have added carry the article past WP:GNG and answer all objections about adequacy of sourcing raised above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is another that discuss the topic of the article in depth [21]--Shrike (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
this added content is promotional garbage, padding with quotes and repetition -- the article now says the same thing four or five times. Not encyclopedic. If consensus here wants WP to contain a promotional brochure for this organization, that is how it will go. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a pro-Israel think tank, is certainly a valid source. The source in question is an article written by Leslie Wagner, Chancellor of the University of Derby, and published in a journal this think tank publishes, Jewish Political Studies Review. The fact that you may not like the political viewpoint of the JCPA or of the scholar who wrote the article does not make Wagner's analysis and description of SPME "promotional garbage."E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of claims about the prestige of various people/sources have nothing to do with with repetitive, promotional content nor with the refs being passing mentions. Saying so it not "battleground". You are getting mighty excited. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sourced added, the notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and E.M.Gregory. IIRC I'm the author or one of the authors of the entry. SPME is pretty active in Germany and there are many references to add, some positive, some negative, I should write a German version but I'm not that active on WP presently.
None of these have "significant coverage". What is up with people bringing all these bad refs to the table here? Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
^NAT HENTOFF (1 March 2005). "Columbia Still Unbecoming". The Village Voice. Retrieved 30 October 2017. Judith Jacobson is vice president and coordinator of the Columbia chapter of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.
^BENJAMIN WEINTHAL (14 February 2011). "ADL LAUDS GERMAN SCHOLAR FOR STUDY ON ANTI-SEMITISM". The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 30 October 2017. Küntzel is an external research associate at the Vidal Sassoon Centre for The Study of Anti- Semitism at the Hebrew University. He teaches political science at a technical college in Hamburg and co-founded the German chapter of Scholars For Peace in the Middle East.
These are also not part of the notability criteria. Heavy-duty lobbying going on here. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"lobbying"??, User:Jytdog, precisely what are you accusing User:XavierItzm of? He hsa made a reasoned argument and, yes, we do indeed consider that when a notable person heads an organization, it enhances the the prestige and notability of that organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not an argument based on N. So not at all "reasoned", here in WP. You are overexcited. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that here: [30] Jytdog deleted a series of comments in which I discussed the list of sources brought by User:Icewhiz (nearly all of which are significant and reliable). His edit note read "Do not interfere with another editor's comments." I had written a line-by-line analysis, signing each line to make clear which comments were mine. If this is improper, I apologize, but I so think it is useful to point out whan an editor is misrepresenting sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yep, as I explained on your talk page here. You remain free to restore them, not interleaved with mine. Instead you make drama? I guess that is less work. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I missed that. However, your explanation [31], in addition to being dismissive and insulting, is puzzling. The text as I left makes it perfectly plain which edits were yours and which comments mine. [32] Cutting to the chase, can you point me to the rule that forbids commenting on a list in this way?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what happens when I reply to you, and you to me? To answer your question, almost nothing is "forbidden" in WP but read the talk page of TPG where there is a huge, intense discussion about this. Nobody loves it. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory's removed comments indicate that he thinks that being listed in a directory, or having a press release cloned in multiple outlets, or having its members or affiliates quoted as sources, contributes to an organization's notability. They do not. Please read WP:ORGDEPTH. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- for lack of reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. I reviewed the sources in the article and presented here at the AfD, including the German ones. They are either passing metions, works by members of the group or highly partisan. Building an article on such sources is not appropriate and would result in an WP:ADVOCACY page.
Notability is not determined by the number of branches they have. I'm not convinced by the argument that "Any organisation with chapters at Stanford University (stanford.edu) (...) is, by definition, notable". Notability is determined by whether 3rd parties have covered the topic;
Delete This is a poorly-sourced promotional article. It fails WP:ORGDEPTH - namely it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The sources provided are either not independent or very trivial mentions. AusLondonder (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin There is currently significant community concern from several long-serving editors in good-standing about the conduct of E.M.Gregory at AfDs. This relates to misleading and dishonest use of sources to convey a false sense of notability. This conduct is being repeated by other editors above - posting raw search results and links to directory entries (yes, directory entries). Another editor has argued "Any organisation with chapters at Stanford University...is by definition, notable" an argument that is directly in contravention of WP:ORGSIG which says "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is" Please remember it is the policy-based consensus arguments that matter, not the loudest advovates who treat Wikipedia as a battleground for their pov-pushing. Quality vs quantity. AusLondonder (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus at WP:AN/I that EMG edits or his behavior is somehow problematic or disruptive--Shrike (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to engage in any further discussion about this here and assist you in diverting and disrupting this AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2017 (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.