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. JForget 22:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva World News[edit]

Advert page for a site with no notability. Triplestop x3 21:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some review at Google suggests that it's a serious and fairly well-known news source for the Orthodox/Hasidic community. A Google News search, as well as the website's own "In the News" section, turns up at least several dozen examples of mainstream reliable news sources relying on and/or referencing news reports originating in Yeshiva World News. The multiple mentions in mainstream reliable sources would satisfy the notability issue for me.
However, I agree that in its current state the article is almost entirely fluff, beyond its initial identifying sentence. I'd note that the same problem seems to exist for the article about YWN's competitor, Vosizneias, which was duly stripped to a single sentence in March.[1] However, a Google search of the string <"Vos iz neias" "yeshiva world news"> turns up more than 3,500 hits that mention both sites. Most of this is just blogger stuff but news reports do pop up here and there discussing and/or comparing the sites. One of the oldest (when this was still a blogspot blog) is this from the May 22, 2006 Times Herald-Record:

Talk feels compelled to give a tip of the, um, black hat to the Yeshiva World blog, which can be found at www.yeshivaworld.blogspot.com. This nameless blogger has got a lot of chutzpah, opening a warts-and-all window onto the world of the orthodox Hasidim who live in the Orange County community of Kiryas Joel, as well as Brooklyn, Rockland County and Israel.
There is also this article[2] in the Five Towns Jewish Times that discussed both Yeshiva World News and Vosizneias. More investigation would be justified.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more: The article in the Five Towns Jewish Times cited above describes YWN and Vosizneias as "the dominant news sources on the Internet for religious Jews." An article in Jewcy, highly critical of YWN in comparison to Vosizneias, nevertheless describes it as "one of the main places where the right-wing Orthodox community gets their news".[3] And this piece from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website decries both of the sites, along with some others, as "a group of Jewish news aggregation Web sites, predominantly serving the ultra-Orthodox community, which copy and republish in-full, without permission or payment, content from more prominent Jewish news sources, robbing them of both desperately needed licensing fees and revenue-generating Web site traffic."[4] The latter 2 articles don't reflect positively on YWN but all of them do seem to tend to establish its notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is just a blog that seeks to advertise itself. Most of his contents is wither unattributed Vosizneias or local news feeds. Even if he sometimes covers events in his neighborhood, that is no different than many town and local interest blogs. He is an aggregate of Orthodox news not a source. Most blogs have been noted in newspaper human interest stories, that does not make them notable. --Jayrav (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because in the age of the Internet, whereby people obtain news and track local and international current events from the web, this has become THE premier site for American English speaking Haredi Jews to gain their news as well as to post and read many announcements of direct interest to that community. While independently run it generally reflects the views of the Agudath Israel of America in a broad sense which itself has no websites and indirectly relies on YWN to get its "news" out. The article needs improvement but it most definitely is WP:N with many WP:R easily available. It certainly qualifies to be in Category:Blogs about Jews and Judaism or Category:Jewish websites all part of Category:Jewish media. Note, this is also clearly a case of Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its a anonymous blog thus not responsible for its content. I would like to have a responsible encyclopedia that only links to respected blogs, as a Haredi Wikipedian, I can attest that this is not notable enough for an encyclopedia.--Chaim Shel (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Gets a significant amount of traffic according to Compete and Alexa. Barely passes notability requirements. Byronwrites (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The YWN website is well known among the ultra-orthodox jews as the leading news in their interests. Unlike VIN, The Yesiva World is more tamed and doesn't have the bloggers taking over the site.I totally disagree with Jayrav; While VIN will usually just copy news from other sources, YWN usually will obtain original news as a source. The NYPD as well as many other Goverment agencies and Elected officials will generally use YWNover VIN to convey their message to the public . Search YWN and VIN match them and you'll see it. Many ultra-orthodox jews get their news from YWN because of their restraint to frequent "immoral"news websites. Its services also benefit the jewish community enormously. But I do agree with Arxiloxos that the article needs more but as IZAK said "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.167.131 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough. -shirulashem^(talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (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.