Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maalos

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maalos

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No claims of notability, sole referenced is a dead link, tried to Google for sources and found nothing. Article appears to be about a monthly magazine, which may not be notable at all, and geared to a local community. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason why the Maalos is not so notable worldwide or on the web is because it is a very fanatic paper, not even using internet etc. But there are tens of thousands of Ultra-Orhodox Yiddish Speakers across the New York State and Israel who know of this publication for years.
Delete per nom. Even if online sources are unavailable, there must be printed sources in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines of GNG and WP:V. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in Tablet, Mosiac, [1], and probably a whole lot of Yiddish coverage as well.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per coverage found by Icewhiz, as linked above (which, should be added to article page). Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there's some degree of duplication going on between Icewhiz's sources, and it obviously has to meet the higher WP:NORG requirements. That said, there's enough to make me teeter on the retain side. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2019 (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.