Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matzav

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. No prejudice to the creation of a redirect to an appropriate target. Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matzav[edit]

[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)

Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. Their rationale is

No outside coverage, existing sources appear unreliable; fails WP:GNG. 99.203.30.151 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk _YO! 12:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and redirect to Israel Policy Forum per nom. This is not notable, and it has a promotional tone. WP:SPIP at best. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The way this article is constructed, it seems to have been written for no purpose otherthan to prove the notability of the subject, using strained language, poor form, and ref bombing to create an overall effect of a man stuttering while trying to explain what this even is. Whether we should have an article on this subject or not, we shouldn't have this article at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply a simplistic promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yeah, this is a cynically refbombed promotional blurb. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Author's note: A redirect from [[Matzav Review]] seems like a more correct answer. There are actually three contenders: matavreview.com, matzav.com and YWNmatzav.com; an article on YWN (Yeshiva World News) was edited to take out the "See also" for [[Matzav]] to read:
"* Matzav (no longer refers to the https://matzav.com site)"
rather than take time to write a stub (or, better yet, an article). My attempt, I concede, should be marked WP:TNT. In fact support, albeit weak, appears to be implied by the above 20:31 11 December 2018 Delete opinion. WP:TNT? Pi314m (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Author's WP:TNT contribution - (a) The New York Times includes a thanks for a link to Matzav.com (b) In all of what I scribbled, I failed to include even a hint to what the (Hebrew) word means. The NYTimes URL is https://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/a-simple-fix-for-a-tragic-mistake

P.S. In other words, I sort of "bombed" at even REFbombing!

P.P.S. As for someone's saying WP:SPIP, what really got me to write this is that, after citing matzav.com (yes, they seem to do more than just aggregate), I was curious to see if there was a Wiki article on them and found what looked like Wiki-cybersquatting: the redirect at [[Matzav]] was created last year. FYI, WHOIS regarding the website matzav.com says created on 2003-07-30, and WHOIS on MatzavReview.com says created 2017-12-27

P.P.P.S. Please re-read the top of this indictment: "Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP editor. Their rationale is No outside coverage, existing sources appear unreliable"

Is someone saying that The Jewish Press is "unreliable"? IS NYTimes (parenting.blog.nytimes) also "unreliable" ? Pi314m (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2018 (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.