Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B'nai Elim (3rd nomination)

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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B'nai Elim

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twice AfD'd, twice-speedied article that keeps returning from the dead. The problem is the same one that led it to be deleted previously: because there is no independent coverage, there is nothing to construct the article out of except material drawn from the group's blog, website, MySpace & Facebook pages, etc. And because there is no coverage, the subject fails WP:GNG & WP:ORG (like it did both times before). Time for some NaCl. (I would nominate it WP:CSD#G4, but I don't know how different the current version is from previously-deleted ones.) -- Rrburke (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some passing references in google news archive but not enough to build an article.Prezbo (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs third-party sources, but NGOs with international operations are generally considered notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't any sources out there, and NGOs are subject to the same notability requirements as everything else.Prezbo (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless reliably sourced to multiple, independent RS'es. Once something has been deleted so many times, there's really no reason the burden of proof shouldn't shift entirely to the re-creator. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Wikipedia:Independent sources. The entire article is constructed out of the group's own website and blogspots. Yoninah (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2010 (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.