Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. The gist of the discussion, setting aside the various walls of text, is that the topic is probably notable but might need a partial or complete rewrite. No consensus about blowing it up, though.  Sandstein  09:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group[edit]

Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I was unable to find additional sources that both have a larger scope than city/county and have more than a trivial mention. At time of nom, majority of current references are the sites own webpage (fails 'indepedent of subject' criteria). The israeli gov page does not appear to mention the subject. The jweekly article is at a news source that covers only local news (fails WP:AUD " On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.") The 'san mateo times' article is hosted (and does so suspiciously) on the main website for the group, but even if we assume that it's accurate, it appears to make no mention of the group and is also only local coverage, for San Mateo county. From the articles creation the infobox has listed only 30 regular participants in the infobox (though the infobox was broken at first) [1] ― Padenton|✉   20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Padenton. With regard to finding aditional sources that both have a larger scope than a city/county, please find [[ http://traubman.igc.org/vidnigeriaresponse.htm ]] which states: "I hope these DVDs will help us move toward improving peace and understanding here in Nigeria. We are planning to use them as part of our Train-the-Trainer workshop next week and then provide copies to each of our American Corners for Nigerians across the nation." Suzanne Miller, Public Affairs Officer, Embassy of the United States, Abuja, NIGERIA. [[2]] Maybe you would like to reach out to the Embassy of the United States to validate this statement independently. Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BenjaminGittins, self-published sources (i.e. published on the groups webpage) do not generate notability. The group needs significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject(the group). (see WP:GNG for details). And FYI, [[blahblahblah]] creates links to articles on wikipedia, you want to use [] for links to websites outside wikipedia. ― Padenton|✉   19:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I am trying to assume that everyone here is operating in good faith User:BenjaminGittins has been editing since 2006, and has been editing this rarely-edited page regularly since he founded the page in March 2013, comfortably using the talk page, and even removing tags from the page. He can hardly be regarded as a novice editor. He has been joined on this otherwise rarely-edited page by SPAs in the past, and a new SPA began to edit the page yesterday. I am not judging the page by the behavior of the editors, there may indeed be sources, but given that this is a page with grand claims and little sourcing - to date - I cannot help but think that it all feels a tad disingenuous. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Pishcal — ♣ 22:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete what appears to be a promotional page for a political movement. The article begins with a chat club on Middle East politics begun in a San Mateo living room. There are two ~RS here, a local (San Mateo) paper ran a story about the group when it began in 1992 (archived on this organization's website, not by the paper), and a local, Jewish paper story on its 20th anniversary.[3]. That's a reported story, albeit local, and not much of an indication of notability. But those two stories are pretty much all we have. The rest of the article is lengthy, with many sections, about efforts to use dialogue to produce peace in the Niddle East and elsewhere. It is sometimes asserted that such were efforts were "encouraged" by the San Mateo group, but NO RS SOURCES are brought. User:BenjaminGittins started the article in March 2013, and has monitored it over the years, removing tags (I just put 2 of the tags he removed back up, as they still apply in my opinion,) he added material, links and sources (often to material generated by the group itself; other times with no apparatn connection to "living room dialoge" at all ) what he and no one else ever added are sources to support the article's grandiose assertions that a movement that began in a San Mateo living room has had international impact. Other editors User Dan-el )(aSPA), IP 97.101.228.14 (ASPA), and User:LTraubman added material to this page, then left Wikipedia. As the last man standing , I hope that User:BenjaminGittins can come and source the claims on the page. It is very difficult to hunt for sources to an alleged movement this vague, with no unique words or phrases in the title . Otherwise, I can't see that these Bay Area living room dialogues are noteworthy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Pishcal. You have stated ``this page appears to be a promotional page for a political movement. I am a little confused by this statement. To be clear, I have never attended any of the activities put on by the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. I am not a member, an affiliate, etc. I am also not based in America. As an independent observer, having considered the activities achieved by this group, I felt that results achieved were significant. I do not feel that *where an article* is hosted is relevant, if that article was originally published by a different organisation. The page as it is currently visible on wikipedia does not include all third party publications related to this group. Please see [[4]] for a more detail list for Video Newscasts, Audio Newscasts and news reports. I removed those references in response to the tags originally placed on the page. Please check that older revision of the page, and please let me know if that addresses the substance of your concern regarding sources... Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
  • comment I had looked carefully through sources before iVoting (above,) and misled by the claims on the page into believing that this might possibly be more than a local club of like-minded individuals who like to talk politics - despite the lack of evidence for that in the sources given. I only just now went to this organization's website, linked from the info box [5]. I am ticked, I feel misused, so I returned to this topic to laud User:Padenton for spotting this flagrant abuse of Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion of what is no more notable than any other book club, bible study group, gourmet cooking group, investment club that meets every week or month in someone's living room. Such groups often continue for decades, raise substantial funds for worthy causes, provide speakers at local events. I now think the best solution is to SPEEDY delete. And perhaps sanction User:BenjaminGittins for removing tags from the page that might have tipped editors off sooner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear E.M.Gregory: With regard to removing the tags from the page., I would kindly bring your attention to the Talk:Jewish-Palestinian_Living_Room_Dialogue_Group page. On that page you can see that I made announcements that I had adjusted the content of the page in response to the tags. You can also see that I waited months before removing the tags. Furthermore someone called Dan had asked if there were any further concerns. After several months had passed, and no additional concerns were raised, i removed the tags and I recorded publicly in the talk page that this is what I had done. I believe I acted in good faith in regard to the substance of the changes requested. Further, the tags related solely to improving the quality of layout and copy-editing. Those tags did not raise any concern about the legitimacy of the page. If I have made a mistake with regard to some Wikipedia policy that I am not aware of, I apologise. In addition, if I have made a mistake with regard to wikipedia best practices, can you point me to the right location where I can read up on what is considered best practices in this regard. Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
    • Dear E.M.Gregory: I am a little confused by your statement that this is: "flagrant abuse of Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion". To be clear, I have never attended any of the activities put on by the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. I am not a member, an affiliate, etc. I am also not based in America. So this is not self-promotion. Nor is it flagrant abuse of Wikipedia for blatent self-promotion. I politely request you detract your false assertion against me. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
User:BenjaminGittins, I now see that you posted on the talk page. Where no one responded. Indeed, what I see it a problem that sometimes occurs on WP, to wit, a page is created filled with assertions and material utterly unsupported by sources (in this case, none of the sources support the claims that this group has primacy among such groups, let alone the sort of global influence that the page asserts. When few or no editors examine such a page, it can stay up for years. Until some alert editor notices it. Such pages are usually started and maintained by a founder, fan, member, or supporter of the group in quesiton. If that does not describe you, I apologize for making such an assumption. All of which still leaves us with an embarrassingly poor page filled with assertions unsupported by sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. Whatever WP:LOCALFAME it may have - and it doesn't seem to have a lot of that, either - it doesn't have the necessary coverage in proper sources to demonstrate notability. I'd remove the spam links, but as this article will necessarily be deleted, no point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I see the issues being raised here. I have only just become aware of the complaints as of today. I will require some time to consider the large number of issues raised. I will require reasonable time as I wish to carefully address each issue raised. I also have intense work commitments that must also be attended to. I created and have maintained this page in good faith. This page has been online for approximately 2 years in service to the community. I feel adequate time should be provided to discuss and address the issues in a well-considered manner. Thank you.

Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


User:Unicorn46 is a brand-new, SPA, editing only on this AFD. The page itself, though infrequently edited, has been edited by otern single-purpose accounts over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • not exactly the 2002 Christian Science Monitor article is about "Arab-Jewish Dialogue, a grass-roots movement that began in the 1980s and that has picked up new momentum in the United States since the Palestinian intifada began anew in 2000" and it says "The national hub for these groups is in the Bay Area of northern California, where organizers Len and Libby Traubman are in the middle of their 10th year of Palestinian-Israeli dialogue" confirming that the Taubmans of San Mateo have been hosting such a group, but the Monitor does not describe the San Mateo living room as the hub or origin.
The Voice of America article confirms that the Taubman living room group has longevity. And that other such groups now exist. Not that the other groups exist because the Taubmans started their
Here's a recent New York Times article about a cooking club that has been meeting continuously for 124 years.[6] It's nice to have your living room chat group written up in the newspaper. It does not make you notable.
An broader article about Israeli-Palestinian grassroots dialogue groups might work.
This article is about a specific group in a specific living room, but most of the copy is about dialogue with no indication of a relationship to the Taubman living room group. The infobox is about this small, local group, which the lede asserts has "grown to global influence". I just don't see evidence this living room club has global significance. Despite the fact that it was the subject of a handful of color stories during the second intifadaE.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The few extra days to improve this article are appreciated. I am open to suggestions as I work to address the issues that have been raised. Unicorn46 (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that there should not be duplicates in the "references" and "external Links" sections. I will clean that up as soon as I have finished with inserting the needed citations. Thank you for your patience with this " brand-new, SPA," I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but I still appreciate your patience. Unicorn46 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Oo7565.. Thank you for being involved in the acceptance process for the submission of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group page on Wikipedia on 7 April 2013. There is currently some discussion about deleting this page. I was wondering if you might be able to provide some constructive information on why this page was originally considered suitable for acceptance on Wikipedia. I was also wondering if you could also contribute some suggestions on how the current contents might be improved, so as to avoid this page being deleted. Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ― Padenton|✉   16:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory Thanks for you feedback above (sorry for replying down here, I'm trying to add comments below the notice above. I accept your apology. I'm personally embarrassed that this page is not as good as it needs to be. I hear your concern about the references, and I will need to see what can be done about that. It is correct, that I have edited several pages before. Several of my changes in the past have been within the capacity of small changes here and there. This is the first time i've created a page on Wikipedia from scratch. I acknowledge i've had difficulties in wrapping my head around the editorial style and requirements. I would like the opportunity to try and improve it over time, to incrementally bring it inline with WP requirement. Ultimately it may prove that it is not possible, but at least I would like to try to do that. As with regard to timing, I have been working 7 days a week all this year, which translates into not having as much bandwidth as I would like to address the above concerns at the speed I would like. I still haven't got my head around all the feedback provided so far, and I apologise about that. I appreciate peoples patience. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
  • Dear E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Roscelese, Padenton, Pishcal, Oo7565, and any other concerned editors: I am thinking about next steps... I am concerned that there are a lot of issues raised in parallel, but i'm not sure how I should prioritise those concerns. What are your collective thoughts on the following strawman process. Step 1. As the person that created this page, I write a short statement about *why* I thought the page was worth creating. Step 2. I systematically address / collect adequate references. Step 3. If previous 2 steps were adequate to address concerns wrt. those points, then look at how the style and content of the page needs to change, and propose various changes. Step 4. Start making changes on the main page. If that sounds about right wrt. process, can the editors please point me to a few links that state what requirements need to be met to justify a page existing. I will then work on point 1, outlining my own motivations for the page, and how I perceive they satisfy (or fall short of) wikipedia requirements. ... Alternatively, if you and the other editors think a different item needs to be addressed as the highest priority, can you and the other editors come to an agreement on what that is, and provide me with links to the pages outlining what needs to be satisfied to address that highest priority point... Thanks. Benjamin Gittins (talk)
  • I increasingly think that this not a naive editor, but, rather, someone using Wikipedia for promotion of a pet cause. This editor knew how to put up citations the day he created this article. With the time he has spent arguing on this AFD, he could have put up any number of solid sources - if he had them. There is a track record of removing tags without fixing the problems. And also of SPAs dedicated to editing this one article, a new SPA appeared during this AFD. Frankly, it feels like we're being played.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What you need to do is show why this group is notable. I don't think you can, but like everyone else here, if it turns out to meet the policies linked above, you can convince us of such and the article can be kept. Look at the WP:GNG and WP:NORG criteria and find reliable sources (these cannot be self-published, written by people involved in the group, etc. WP:GNG provides a nice definition for these sources, apply that to the WP:NORG criteria as well. You might find this helpful: Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates#Favoring_keeping_or_merging ― Padenton|✉   17:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reply" E.M.Gregory, Padenton, the consensus appears to be that the highest priority is to address solid sources. So I will begin to work on that. See my point below.
  • "Reply" E.M.Gregory, here is my first very quick cut at off-site references. I have extracted this from the original page, so you do not have to wade through links that pointed to copies of articles/videos created by third party sources that were mirrored on the Traubman website.

News Reports[edit]

  • May/June 1996 - Timeline - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group: Jews and Palestinians Cooperate for Peace
  • Friday, November 21, 1997 - J Weekly - Hundreds of Jews, Palestinians get taste of unity here Article
  • Friday, November 21, 1997 - J Weekly - Grassroots ties bolster peace talks, Mideast envoy says - Article
  • November 15, 1997 - San Jose Mercury News - Abraham's Children: Jews, Palestinians seek peace through dialogue
  • November 21, 1997 - Christian Science Monitor - To Build a Common Future - Article
  • November 22, 1997 - San Mateo Weekly - Editorial - Jews, Palestinians gather together
  • Sunday, April 18, 1999 - San Jose Mercury News - Traditional enemies meet as friends
  • June 23, 2000 - J Weekly - Palestinian-Jewish quilt offers pattern for peace, social change - Article
  • September 22, 2000 - J Weekly - Nadim Zarour, Arab-Jewish dialogue pioneer, dies at 49 - Article
  • October 13, 2000 - Santa Cruz Sentinel - Local group brings opposing Palestinians, Jews together - Article
  • December 1, 2000 - J Weekly - Teens tackle coexistence, Mideast strife at JCC Club 18 - Article
  • March 31, 2001- San Jose Mercury News - Palestinians, Jews can unlearn old habits - Article
  • January 19, 2002 - National Journal - The Weekly on Politics and Government - Washington, DC - Jews and Palestinians Begin to Talk, in America
  • January 25, 2002 - J Weekly - Making peace in the living room - Article
  • January 25, 2002 - J Weekly - Defusing the intifada in Bay Area living room groups - [8]
  • September 11, 2002 - San Francisco Chronicle - 9.11 Voices / A New Life as The Enemy Within - Article
  • November 3, 2002 - Associated Press - Student forums help Palestinians, Israelis reach out - Article
  • November 3, 2002 - Free Lance-Star - Forums at U.S. campuses try to ease Mideast tensions - Article
  • November 26, 2004 - San Francisco Chronicle - Cookbook brings Israelis, Palestinians to the table - Article
  • February 1, 2005 - Kalamazoo Gazette - Peace-camp reps build resolve
  • September 23, 2005 - J Weekly - 140 Arabs and Jews share ‘magical’ Tawonga weekend - Article
  • January 27, 2006 - Oakland Tribune - Scholars, pacifists, praise elections - Article
  • June 25, 2006 - YNet News - Explosion of peace efforts - Article
  • June 29, 2006 - Golden Gate Xpress - Palestinian-Israeli conflict promotes peaceful student communication
  • September 8, 2006 - San Francisco Chronicle - Peaceful setting, intense dialogue - Article
  • October 16, 2007 - Oakland Tribune - Palestinians, Jews unite at Yosemite camp - Article
  • October 19, 2007 - J Weekly - Jews, Palestinians talk peace under the pines at Tawonga - Article
  • October 16, 2008 - CNN Anderson Cooper 360 - Palestinians, Jews engaging and creating - Article
  • November 20, 2008 - Cultural IQ - Jews-Palestinians: There's A Meeting in the Living Room - Article
  • November 27, 2008 - Jewish Herald-Voice - Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue Group: Listening In the Midst of the Storm - Article
  • January 9, 2009 - Palo Alto Online - Finding world peace in the living room: Local Jews, Palestinians have been learning from each other for 16 years - Article
  • January 18, 2009 - Journalist Hana Baba - Palestinian-Jewish Living Room Dialogue - Article
  • May 05, 2009 - Common Ground News Service - Enemies no more: the power of sustained dialogue - Article
  • May 12, 2009 - New Jersey Jewish News - Dialogue forum seeks hope beyond the headlines - Article
  • June 01, 2009 - Mideast Youth - Dreamers and Believers Changing Reality - Article
  • February 8, 2010 - Journal of Interreligious Dialogue - 214 Dialogues for Peace - Article
  • February 16, 2010 - San Francisco Examiner - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogues - [linking to examiner.com blacklisted by Wikipedia]
  • February 20, 2012 - Yosef Gotlieb - Peacemakers turn their sights on Nigeria - Article
  • April 25, 2012 - NCDD - Harlem Cinema with Audience Participation: Beyond Q&A, Giving Voices to Everyone - Article
  • May 3, 2012 - Insight on Conflict - Young Nigerians illustrate life beyond war - Article
  • December 13, 2012 - J Weekly - Jewish-Palestinian dialogue group still going strong after 20 years - Website page
  • 25 January 2013 - The Washington Post - Food truck will deliver message of Mideast peace - Website page — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminGittins (talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlines?[edit]

  • It is not clear to me that there is a hard deadline for resolving the issue on this page. That is to say, I cannot see any obvious indication of a deadline with regard to this page achieving a consensus. However, I would prefer not to be caught unaware by some procedural detail only known to those who are regularly involved in considering articles for deletion. Can someone please clarify this point? Also, is there some page of policies and procedures that I should be aware of as one of the people defending this article? Benjamin Gittins (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

  • The Living Room Dialogs: Listen, youtube [9]

Thesis[edit]

The Dialogue Group and participants have been included as subjects of research papers and theses.

  • ARAB-JEWISH COOPERATIVE COEXISTENCE IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE by Avi Zer-Aviv -- University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2005
  • BRIDGING DIFFERENT TRUTHS: Creating Dialogue for Reconciliation and Healing by Yuichi Ohta -- The International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan, 2003
  • BUILDING PEACE BETWEEN PEOPLE: The Role of NGOs in Transforming Relations Between Israelis and Palestinians by Louis-Alexandre Berg -- Brown University, 2000
  • A CALL FOR ADVENTURE-BASED CONFLICT RESOLUTION by Shawn M. Dunning -- George Mason University, 2004
  • THE COMPASSIONATE LISTENING PROJECT: A Case Study in Citizen Diplomacy and Peacemaking by Marie Pace -- Syracuse University, 2005
  • COMPOSING A CIVIC LIFE: Influences of Sustained Dialogue on Post-Graduate Civic Engagement and Civic Life by Ande Diaz -- Fielding Graduate University - Santa Barbara, CA, 2009
  • CONVERSATIONS FOR PEACE. An Oral History of the Path to Palestinian and Jewish Reconciliation in Two California Communities by Allison Helise Rubalcava - California State University, Fullerton, 2001
  • DIALOGO INTERCULTURAL: Comunidad Arabe y Judia en Chile by Lorenzo Agar Corbinoes & Abraham Magendzo Kolstrein - Santiago, Chile, 2009
  • DIALOGUE BETWEEN CHRISTIANS, JEWS AND MUSLIMS: The Concept of Covenant as Basis by Ian Rex Fry, RDA - MCD University of Divinity -- Kew, Victoria, Australia, 2012
  • EVALUATING PEACE EDUCATION IN THE OSLO-INTIFADA GENERATION: A Long - Term Impact Study of Seeds of Peace 1993-2010 by Ned Lazarus - American University - Washington, DC USA, 2011
  • THE FIELD BEYOND WRONGDOING AND RIGHTDOING: A Study of Arab-Jewish Grassroots Dialogue Groups in the United States by Nurete L. Brenner - Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA, 2011
  • GENERATING FORGIVENESS AND CONSTRUCTING PEACE THROUGH TRUTHFUL DIALOGUE: Abrahamic Perspectives by Hilarie Roseman -- Macquarie University, Sydney,Australia, 2013
  • MUSIC FOR PEACE IN JERUSALEM: A Senior Essay in International Studies by Micah Hendler -- Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA, 2012
  • QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: Conflict Resolution Framework and Building Relationships Through Dialogue in the Peace It Together, 2008 Initiative by Danielle Sleiman - Simon Fraser University - Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2008
  • SHIFT HAPPENS: Transformation During Small Group Interventions in Protracted Social Conflicts by Nike Carstarphen -- George Mason University - Fairfax, VA, 2003
  • TOWARD A TYPOLOGY OF DIALOGUE AND DELIBERATION by Adi Greif -- Stanford University - Stanford, CA, 2006
  • Please note that a number of edits were made on this page over the weekend, including moving many of the urls from the External Links section into the References section as they were tied to the text of the page as citations. It is my understanding from reading the instructions that it is best not to have duplicates in the two sections, so it might be helpful to insert some of the unused urls into the page as citations where appropriate. Some of the sections were merged as suggested and a section was added on international activity since there was some concern about the actual impact of the group outside of San Mateo. In addition, a number of media references were added and an effort was made to list direct sources to those media references, rather than referencing The Dialogue Group's list of all their activities since 1992. Unicorn46 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interview[edit]

  • A thorough and recent interview of the story of Libby and Len Traubman concerning their work with the dialogue group by a British investigator Dr. Wannette J.Tuinstra, Editor in Chief, GOLDENROOM, Online Journal for Cross Cultural Relations, United Kingdom can be found here [10]. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doug Nol, INTERVIEW WITH LEN AND LIBBY TRAUBMAN, wsRadio.com -- 18 February 2010, [11] Benjamin Gittins (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have the requests for citations of credible sources been adequately addressed by the contents of the updated page and in the links above?[edit]

  • The problem here is that most of these are still either just local news (JWeekly, Oakland Tribute, Golden Gate Xpress, Jewish Herald Voice, Palo Alto Online, etc.), Self-published (San Francisco Examiner), opinion articles by members of the group (The Christian Science Monitor article above, CNN Anderson Cooper article, among others), or simply a brief mention of the group (Washington Post article, Associated Press article etc.) I'm still not seeing anything passing WP:GNG, and no evidence the thesis papers would likely pass it either. Local news coverage is not enough, as explained in my nomination. WP:GNG requires "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
  1. Significant coverage means that the article would require the article to be about the group.
  2. Reliable sources means they meet the requirements in WP:RS, for example, they are from a reputable news organization with editorial review and not self-published.
  3. independent of the subject means that sources written by members of the group or those with a conflict of interest do not establish notability.
The only sources that matter in this discussion here are those that would satisfy WP:GNG. ― Padenton|✉   20:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't as of yet, have a view on notability. But as to Padenton's comment above, I agree in part and disagree in part. Sources such as JWeekly, Oakland Tribute, Golden Gate Xpress, Jewish Herald Voice, Palo Alto Online, etc. certainly do count towards notability. Self-published opinion articles by members of the group do not. Brief mentions of the group do not by themselves demonstrate GNG, but if there is enough in Washington Post articles, Associated Press articles, etc., along with the first mentioned sources they can satisfy wp:GNG. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to list WP:AUD as well: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." ― Padenton|✉   07:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They count towards notability. If your point is only that at least one regional or national or international source is necessary, that is true. But those exist as well. Though they are not devoted to the subject. But Jweekly, for example, is regional covering 20,000 readers, and some of those other refs are RSs ... and the knock on those sources as not counting towards notability is an exaggeration (unintentional) of what our guideline actually says. Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: Jweekly isn't regional, it covers the city/county of San Francisco. 20,000 readers is nothing, there are 50 million people in California and 850,000 in San Francisco county alone. There are nearly 20,000 people in every square mile of San Francisco. I grow tired of digging for a needle in this haystack of non-WP:RS or non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources(many of which have now been listed several times), so if you don't mind, I would appreciate if you would be specific about which one I missed. ― Padenton|✉   20:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Padenton -- that's a bald mis-statement. Of course Jweekly is regional. Where in the world do you come up with the unsupported statement that it only covers San Francisco? That's a mis-statement. Presumably unintentional on your part. Have you read the publication's "About" section, for example. Which clearly states: "the newspaper serves nearly 20,000 homes throughout Northern California.". I haven't even !voted as of yet, but I'm concerned about your engaging in exaggerations and mis-statements to support your position. Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: It's written right here in their logo: [12]. See WP:AUD: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." If you look through their articles, jweekly purely covers SF stories. SF Bay area is not a region, it's a few counties. It also fails the "media of limited interest and circulation" requirement. The SF Bay area has 7.5 million people. ― Padenton|✉   17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does cover the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, a region that surrounds the San Francisco and San Pablo estuaries in Northern California, which region also surrounds a number of other bays including San Leandro Bay, Suisun Bay, San Rafael Bay, Richardson Bay, Grizzly Bay, and Honker Bay, and which region encompasses the major cities and metropolitan areas of San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland, along with smaller urban and rural areas. It also "serves nearly 20,000 homes throughout Northern California." This is what is meant by a "regional" newspaper. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to notability: Group in the Northern Region of Cameron inspired by the work of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. [1] CNN Anderson Cooper story on the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders[2] International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation radio program about the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. The Center is based in New York.[3] Christian Science Monitor – 8th and 27th sections (count single sentences as sections) of this article specifically mention the group founders and the Dialogue Process used by the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and that the national hub for the Dialogue groups is the Jewish –Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group[4] Voice of America News Article specifically mentions the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders in the very beginning of the article and again at the end[5] The Monmouth University Directory of Arab-Jewish/Israeli-Palestinian Groups for Dialogue and Peaceful Coexistence, published in New Jersey, specifically mentions the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group – see Page 2[6] The Jewish Journal, published in Los Angeles specifically mentions the groups founders and the work of the group. See paragraph 2 [7] ABC, NBC and CNN interviewed members of the Jewish–Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group during the 2000 Intafada and while the files now have to be accessed through the site of the founders, they do, none-the-less exist, the group was considered “notable” enough for three national new channels to interview its members and the news clips can be watched on either a MAC or a PC. Go to the year 2000 and see the third entry.[8] The NeedCSI Website in Nigeria notes a Film and Conference for over 200 diverse African women and men which resulted from the International collaboration between the New Era Educational and Charitable Support Foundation and the Jewish Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group, California, USA held in Jos, Nigeria [9] The United Religions Initiative reports on its website about a project in Nigeria’s Bauchi State that was inspired by the Jos, Nigeria Conference. [10] Journal13H – a news program in the Ivory Coast ran a story on the Albino/Non-albino Reconciliation meeting with English subtitles. The Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group was the co sponsor of the gathering and the name of the group can be seen on the banner in the video. Members of the group helped facilitate the meeting. While the group leaders posted the link – the event still happened and it drew media attention in the Ivory Coast. [11] The Jewish Herald Voice is not a local paper – it is, in fact, published in Houston, TX[12] Unicorn46 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://globalcompassio.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/interfaith-dialogue/
  2. ^ http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/palestinians-jews-engaging-and-creating/
  3. ^ http://icermediation.com/2013/09/28/the-citizen-to-citizen-public-peace-process-icerm-radio-program-with-libby-and-len-traubman/
  4. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0206/p11s01-lihc.html
  5. ^ http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2006-06-20-voa40/317928.html
  6. ^ http://www.monmouth.edu/university/directory-of-arab-jewish/israeli-palestinian-groups-for-dialogue-and-peaceful-coexistence.aspx
  7. ^ http://www.jewishjournal.com/education/article/jews_and_palestinians_talk_peace_under_norcal_pines_20071102
  8. ^ http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm
  9. ^ http://needcsi.org/new/dialogue-in-nigeria-muslims-christians-creating-their-future/
  10. ^ http://www.uri.org/the_latest/2015/05/a_strong_partnership_between_facis_and_jewishpalestinian_living_room_dialogue_in_san_mateo_california_usa
  11. ^ http://traubman.igc.org/dg-prog.htm
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Herald-Voice
These are already in the list above and suffer from the problems stated. ― Padenton|✉   07:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to notability: CNN and MSNBC TV

  • CNN World News - 2000, [13]. You will need to watch for about 60 seconds to get the CNN video clip recording embedded within that video.
  • CNN Program Transcript, [14]. This talks about the living room group directly.
  • MSNBC-TV News -- 2002 news (video - Ashley Banfield: Region in Conflict) [15] you need to start about 45 seconds to get into the video itself. This talks about the living room directly..
  • MSNBC-TV news (documented by the United States Institute of Peace) [16]

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 06:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically addressing the requirements of WP:GNG[edit]

  • Padenton, I politely disagree with your statement that all the references mentioned by Unicorn46 "suffer from the problems stated". I appreciate that many of the links cited above refer to the activities that this group has contributed to (i.e. the deliverables of the group.). So I will try to create a more focussed list below. Specifically wrt. to WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If I understand correctly, the topic here is the "Jewish-Palestine Living Room Dialog Group". My understanding is that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content". So I am trying to compile the following links that are EXPLICITLY on the notability of the group itself, are reliable, are independent of the subject, and that includes multiple sources, thereby satisfying requirements of WP:GNG. I note that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage"... However in this case Notability continues to resurface over time. Please also note that the links below satisfy the requirement to have at least one regional or national (MSNBC) or international source (CNN, GOLDENROOM).
  • CNN World News - 2000, [17] You will need to watch for about 60 seconds to get the CNN video clip recording embedded within that video. This talks about the living room group directly..
  • CNN Program Transcript 2000, [18]. This is the transcript of the above video clip hosted on the CNN website.
  • MSNBC-TV News -- 2002 news (video - Ashley Banfield: Region in Conflict) [19] you need to start about 45 seconds to get into the video itself. This talks about the living room group directly..
  • A interview of the story of Libby and Len Traubman concerning their work with the dialogue group by a British investigator Dr. Wannette J.Tuinstra, Editor in Chief, GOLDENROOM, Online Journal for Cross Cultural Relations, United Kingdom can be found here [20].
  • Doug Nol, INTERVIEW WITH LEN AND LIBBY TRAUBMAN, wsRadio.com -- 18 February 2010. This talks about the living room group directly.
  • CNN Anderson Cooper story on the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group and its founders [1]
  • International Center for Ethno-Religious Mediation radio program about the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group. The Center is based in New York.[2]
  • http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/7051/grassroots-ties-bolster-peace-talks-mideast-envoy-says/ . This talks about the living room group directly. U.S. Middle East envoy Dennis Ross. The diplomat Dennis Roos "heaped praise on the dialogue group, which has promoted the search for common ground between the two peoples for the past five years." "What this group represents is what the peace process is all about," Ross said. "Peace has to connect people. It has to build bonds between people." "I don't want it limited only to America. Frankly, where we need it most is in the area," he said, referring to the Mideast.
  • The Living Room Dialogs: Listen, youtube [21] -- Directly about the existence and activities of the group.

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/palestinians-jews-engaging-and-creating/
  2. ^ http://icermediation.com/2013/09/28/the-citizen-to-citizen-public-peace-process-icerm-radio-program-with-libby-and-len-traubman/

Have the concerns regarding WP:GNG now been successfully addressed?[edit]

  • No, will you please stop spamming the same poor sources as before? It is beginning to get disruptive. I do not have all the time in the world to do your work for you, digging through every article from an unreliable source you post multiple times in this AFD hoping to flood the page so that some inattentive closer will hopefully close it as keep because he can't see anyone in favor of deletion. I am a strong believer in WP:AGF but this is getting ridiculous. If you can't provide sources meeting WP:GNG and WP:NORG then newsflash: your 30-person dinner club is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I still do not see a single source that is INDEPDENDENT of the subject(That means no articles from the creator of the group, or members, and interviews do not count either) and more than LOCAL coverage. Pick some out, post it (and ONLY sources meeting those criteria) below. ― Padenton|✉   20:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. As per Padenton. But also, as I stated above, I have come to suspect that this experienced editor, editing on a rarely edited page that has been edited by a series of SPAs, unusually familiar with Wikipedia procedure, and certainly an avid partisan of this group, seems to be displaying faux ignorance in an effort to game AFD and keep this page live.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rankism. I am concerned that the complaints against Unicorn46 regarding that user's particular skillset, and labelling that user as SPA in this case may be being used as a form of [Rankism] to diminish the independent contributions of that user. I do not see any "gaming" taking place here. Rather, I see a genuine attempt to address the concerns raised by various editors. To be clear, I am not Unicorn46 and I have never met or talked with Unicorn46. I do not use sock puppets. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very helpful to know why, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, The Christian Science Monitor, The Monmouth University Directory of Arab-Jewish/Israeli-Palestinian Groups for Dialogue and Peaceful Coexistence, published in New Jersey, British investigator Dr. Wannette J.Tuinstra, Editor in Chief, GOLDENROOM publishing in the UK, The Jewish Journal, published in Los Angeles are not considered non-local groups reporting on the activities and impact of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Group. It would also be encouraging if we could stay focused on the effort at hand and continue to "assume good faith".Unicorn46 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Unicorn46: It's simple. It's been explained above. Now stop wasting our time.― Padenton|✉   14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate criteria - With regard to [Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)][edit]

  • Alternate Criteria. Dear Epeefleche,E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Roscelese, Padenton, Pishcal:
  • Padenton, this is not a dinner club. This is a group engaging in Track_II_diplomacy, and engaging in assisting peace-building processes at the community level. Padenton and E.M.Gregory, this page does not require WP:SECONDARY to be notable. According to Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), organizations are considered notable if they meet one of the following sourcing requirements: "alternate criteria, primary criteria, general notability". With regard to Alternate criteria for non-commercial organisations:
  • Some organisations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. - Clearly this groups has achieved both national and international notice, for their local activities as evidenced by CNN and MSNBC. There is is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area with regard to this point.
  • Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. -- This group has received over 40 independent citations regarding the group itself, and its activities. You could say, for such as small group, this is a very impressive result, and is notable in its own right. The achievements of this group are also noteworthy.
  • I believe this group is notable based on Wikipedia's alternate criteria policy, independent of WP:SECONDARY.

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the CNN and MSNBC citations?[edit]

  • Dear E.M.Gregory, Padenton, Can you please explain in more details what is the problem SPECIFICALLY with the MSNBC and CNN citations... I am trying to understand your concern in the context of the primary and alternate notability criteria. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Short list of Video sources that are clearly independent, and available online[edit]

  • Dear Padenton you stated: WP:GNG requires "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." 1) Significant coverage means that the article would require the article to be about the group. 2) Reliable sources means they meet the requirements in WP:RS, for example, they are from a reputable news organization with editorial review and not self-published. 3) independent of the subject means that sources written by members of the group or those with a conflict of interest do not establish notability. -- the following items meet those requirements. Clearly, the following videos have not been manipulated, and so can be considered credible irrespective of some of them being mirrored on the Trabuman website (Citing a/v news media sources is hard, as many of those sources do not keep copies of all their interviews and articles online):
  • January 2009 - NBC-TV - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue - YouTube Video
  • January 2009 - KTVU-TV - Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue - YouTube Video
  • October 2000 - Heather Ishimaru, ABC-TV News - Video (WMV format)
  • CNN'S Don Knapp. CNN World News - 2000, [22]. You will need to watch for about 60 seconds to get the CNN video clip recording embedded within that video. The Program Transcript, is here [23]. This talks about the living room group directly.
  • MSNBC's Ashley Banfield, MSNBC-TV News -- 2002 news (video - Ashley Banfield: Region in Conflict) [24] you need to start about 45 seconds to get into the video itself. This talks about the living room directly.. It talks about new groups being made as a result. --- This video is documented by the United States Institute of Peace here: [25]
  • January 31, 2005 - Channel 8 Kalamazoo - Peace Camp Leaders - Video (WMV format)
  • September, 2005 - CBS-TV - Peacemakers Camp News - YouTube Video

Benjamin Gittins (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is the problem with these
  1. Local news(says so at the start of the video)
  2. KTVU is a local news affiliate.
  3. ABC-7 is local news.
  4. Interviews with members of the group. This fails WP:INDEPENDENT as I have said several times now.
  5. Not about the group. Notability isn't inherited, and you're not notable just because a few new groups are created.
  6. Local. Rule of thumb: Anything that says "channel _" or some random 4-character designation (KTVU, etc.) is local news.
  7. Local news (cbs5), coverage is not about the group.
The reason these sources don't keep copies of all their interviews and articles hosted online is because they're local news coverage. Stop wasting my time. These have the same exact problems that have already been said multiple times. ― Padenton|✉   17:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Padenton, With regard to WP:AUD, under Primary Criteria: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary."". Clearly, the two videos you didn't mention, re CNN World, MSNCBC and the print source you may have overlooked by Voice of America [26], collectively qualify as satisfying "at least one national/international source". So from what I understand of the WP:AUD, this implies that the other 'local news' sources can now be used within the context of the Primary criteria. There are also Alternate criteria for non profit organisations, such as: "Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. " Obviously that does not exclude all local media sources, but only media sources that are geographically local. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 19:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BenjaminGittins: The "two videos [I] didn't mention" were ones I in fact mentioned. If you can't understand how to read a numbered list, I don't know how to help you. Is this a non-profit organization? Non-profit organization is a legal classification, it doesn't just apply to any number of people that meets up and doesn't exist for a profit-driven goal. You need to be registered with the government for that, feel free to provide a link to a government database showing this. But even then, there is 0 verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. ― Padenton|✉   19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More independent reports from credible sources[edit]

*More independent reports from credible sources on the activities of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group Associated Press Article that mentions the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group [1] Associated Press Herald Journal article on how the Jewish –Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group coordinated a dialogue at Georgetown University [2] Washington Post - See 5th paragraph after the second picture [3] The activities of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue Group have reached far beyond their beginnings as a group of concerned citizens meeting in a living room in 1992. Unicorn46 (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.ifapray.org/archive/Understanding_Palestinian_Terrorism/UPT2003/Anti-Semitic%20Acts%20Up%20on%20Campuses%20%20-%20March%2028,%202003.html
  2. ^ https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=20021103&id=pK0nAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J9AEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5271,597393&hl=en
  3. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/food-truck-will-deliver-message-of-mideast-peace/2013/01/25/b121ea7e-6665-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html
Again, this is the problem with these
  1. Brief mention. There is no discussion of the group. Len Traubman is quoted, and Traubman is mentioned as the founder of the group. This article says absolutely nothing about the group itself.
  2. Brief mention. Helping coordinate an event doesn't give a group notability. A source being used to establish a group's notability needs to provide significant coverage of the group. I.e. a standalone article should be able to be made based on its information. This is not the case here. From this source, the most that could be said about the group is that it helped coordinate an event.
  3. Again, brief mention. This article is about a food truck owner. Libby Traubman is quoted, and introduced as the co-founder of the group: "said Libby Traubman, co-founder of the Jewish-Palestinian Living Room Dialogue, which tries to facilitate interaction between Arabs and Jews. “It think it will work because, well, everyone likes food.”" There is no other mention of the group in this article.
These show nothing about the groups notability. It suggests (to me) that Len and Libby Traubman might meet the notability guidelines(with other sources), but there is nothing here to suggest that the living room group is notable. ― Padenton|✉   17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Padenton, the observation that one person is the group's contact point and thus more-interviewed is not reason to diminish the group's collective global effects, any more than if another group's executive director is more commonly interviewed to describe a collective endeavour. Benjamin Gittins (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BenjaminGittins: For the tenth time, sources where some member is quoted for an unrelated story and the group is mentioned only to provide context for that person's quote, DOES NOT GIVE YOUR GROUP NOTABILITY. I grow tired of being notified to this article 5 times a day when you repeatedly refuse to provide any sources establishing notability and meeting the criteria that you were told about in the fucking nomination. Do not post my username again without providing a source that is reliable, independent (Where the coverage of the group is not written or said by a member of the group), substantial coverage (meaning NO BRIEF MENTIONS), and in a news source that is not local news. ― Padenton|✉   19:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Despite, or perhaps because of, the walls of text above, nobody has actually expressed a "delete" or "keep" opinion since the last relist. I ask that previously uninvolved editors do so now, and that the editors who have written the walls of text above leave the discussion to others for now.  Sandstein  15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but TNT: Surprisingly the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. However this "article" is a trainwreck. It's written in a promotional tone, not an encyclopedic one, and is overall a mess. Wikipedia is not the "About Us" section of a website. Blow it up and start over. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wide variety of sources brought forward during this debate show the notability of the group quite convincingly. The combative and dogged behavior of an editor fighting to delete the article is unseemly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 I agree with that comment. Something else is going on here, which is pretty clear to an outsider. This is nuts. FYI I would be willing to overhaul the article to improve it to decent standards if nobody else plans to do so. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG. Some of the arguments above are troubling, in that they are not just wrong-headed but border on something worse. We have sufficient substantial coverage from appropriate RSs to warrant a keep !vote. Some of this may not have been evident to early !voters, but the discussion has been helpful in this regard. Obviously the article needs cleaning -- but that is irrelevant to the !voting here, as AfD is not for cleanup. Kudos to the above editor for offering to clean it up. Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT. I agree with Epeefleche - there are sources that bring this to GNG (e.g. the Xtian Sci Monitor article ([27]). The problem is that the article itself is not written in an encylopedic style and has lots of extraneous stuff. Most of the "Means of Change" section is unrelated to the group and may need wholesale removal. The Activities section is way overdone. The DVD section simply should be removed. It's got major reference spam. TNT is the only solution. I'm willing to help, but it's a big job. Any other offers? LaMona (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a "deep edit" to be found here User:LaMona/tnt. It still has a lot of OR in the list of related groups, but I don't think that's a huge problem. I removed all non-RS sources (other than those in that list). I did not add other sources that have surfaced here. Anyone have a comment? LaMona (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jewish-Palestinian_Living_Room_Dialogue_Group&oldid=1079657294"