Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad at Texas A&M University

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 redirect to Chabad on Campus International Foundation. Closing this earlier than I originally anticipated due to aspersions-laden arguments in full swing. El_C 03:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chabad at Texas A&M University[edit]

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

Chabad at Texas A&M University (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)

No significant, in-depth coverage independent of the subject. Most of the citations in this article are primary-sourced to the organization itself. The few third-party sources almost exclusively represent routine coverage of local events and activities sponsored by the center. These activities are typical of many other Chabad centers and student/campus centers in general. Notably, there are more than 400 campus Chabad centers globally. Neutralitytalk 14:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, then you probably mean that this article should be redirected? In any case, IMHO this article can clearly stand on its own. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion Debresser, then why not change your vote to Redirect then? By gambling on Keep you are risking deletion. StonyBrook (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with Debresser as to whether this article should be kept, I don't believe that this is an "all or nothing" gamble in terms of keep vs. delete. If the consensus is against keeping the article, a redirect could remain an option. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Debresser's request below, I still believe that deletion is appropriate, but as a second choice I would support a redirect. I don't have an opinion yet as to what the target of that redirect would be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have edited the article to remove some sources that stem specifically from the subject itself, other than sources about staff and the school which the source website would be the best source for. In addition, The vast majority of citations are to local and national news sources that are not tied to the source. Only 5 out of over more than forty sources are tied to the source itself, and only because that is the best place to get information about staff or specific building facilities. The Jewish Herald-Voice and Texas Jewish Post are both city newspapers in Houston and Dallas, and chabad.org and Lubavitch Headquarters News are international news sources. Also, many of the events cited by the sources are not recurring events at the center, but one specific even that was highlighted, for example the finalist in the Sinai Scholars Society competition cited by chabad.org. There are wikipedia pages for specific Chabad houses, and the fact that are many Chabad Houses should not be grounds for this not being notable. It is the only Orthodox synagogue in the city and in the county. A similar organization, Texas A&M Hillel, also has a wikipedia page, even though it is one of hundreds of Hillels across North America. AriH972 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. StonyBrook (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not important enough for creating this separate page. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then how come this article has 46 sources? That seems to indicate importance. I mean, of the 8 articles on the DYK section of our main page of today, only one article had that many sources... Debresser (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFBOMBING is not an insurance policy against deletion. StonyBrook (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case. Invoking some guideline does not mean it is relevant. Something that should be mentioned at WP:TE, by the way. :) Debresser (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not TE to appropriately respond to your loaded question, nor is it TE to rebuff an attempt to stifle a debate. If your presumption is that 46 references automatically convey notability, you should already know that many of them are primary references associated with the subject, and many others, such as this one [1], fall squarely under the category of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What is encyclopedic about a campus community center's 5-year anniversary party, and why exactly is that important? StonyBrook (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is a unique organization. Chabad on Campus, and the wikipedia page associated with it, is not the the parent organization and this is simply the local chapter. Chabad at Texas A&M University is locally managed and the national organization only provides educational materials. Otherwise, all programming and education decisions are made specifically by the center, and the sources reflect the uniquely tailored programming for the community. Both the KBTX and The Eagle are local media sources that note the distinct and special impact the center has on the community. Just because there are many Chabad on Campuses should not preclude this page from existing, just as there may be a number of synagogues in a given city and the existence of another synagogue within the same movement would not preculde it from having a page. AriH972 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of this (e.g., student newspaper coverage, local radio mentions) shows significant, in-depth coverage. The fact that an organization has a "distinct and special impact...on the community" is not a material consideration in deletion discussions. Neutralitytalk 20:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike duplicate !vote. You may comment as many times as you desire, but each editor is only entitled to one !vote. Thank you. --Kinu t/c 05:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a fairly large article with 46 sources. Also not a merge candidate. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator refers to the stricter notability criteria of WP:ORG, but since this is a religious organization, WP:NCHURCH is the relevant guideline, according to which it is sufficient to meet the general notability criteria. Debresser (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reread WP:NCHURCH, which states Individual religious organizations, congregations and churches must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both. (Emphasis mine). WP:GNG alone doesn't necessarily provide a carte blanche to include this. StonyBrook (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You do understand what the word "or" means, don't do? Debresser (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the first and last definition [2], "or" here means it is uncertain whether to require one or the other alternative guidelines, or both, to any given organization, with each individual case requiring a separate consensus to be reached. The "or" in "or both" cannot mean it is an equivalent choice because it includes both elements of the first two, rendering the 3rd way logically unequivalent. In addition, NCHURCH appears under a section of N:ORG which begins by stating that it is only an "optional, alternative method" to determine notability, and goes on to require adherence to WP:NOTPROMO and WP:NOTBLOG, which this article mostly is. StonyBrook (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have an issue with the "or", you should take it up on that guideline's talkpage, but it seems obvious to me, even without the need to consult a dictionary, that "or" means that either criteria are acceptable. So this whole section, including all the votes cast, are based on an incorrect representation of the relevant guideline, so I think this should be relisted, and all editors asked to recast their votes based on the correct guideline. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Texas A&M University, similar to how UCLA Chabad House, a branch with an aesthetically significant structure, redirects to University of California, Los Angeles. This is a well-written article that is nevertheless a thinly disguised PR piece about a campus Chabad chapter that should have no place in an encyclopedia as a stand-alone. It is sourced exclusively to, and trivially mentioned in, local and/or primary sources, with no significant coverage at the national or even regional level per WP:ORG and WP:AUD. The passionate and (so far) only Keep voters are the WP:SPA article creator and a self-identified Chabad rabbi. StonyBrook (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not simply a thinly-veiled PR piece, this is an entry on a very specific Chabad center and does not advertise in any way. The religious organization has a ten year history in the area, and if you checked out all of the sources and where each publication is based out of, you would see that it is not just local news coverage. The center is based in College Station, Texas, but the overwhelming majority of news sources are not based in that city. The Jewish Herald-Voice and the Texas Jewish Post are based in Houston and Dallas, respectively, and many of the other other news organizations cover both national and international events. I do not understand how you can characterize this piece as only primarily and locally sourced when the vast majority of sources are either out of the city, out of the state, or international. AriH972 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no national or international news coverage of this subject, except for limited interest Chabad sites. The TJP, while secondary, is also limited interest, and the JHV articles cited are not neutral reporting but are in fact press-releases, as can be ascertained by the contact information provided,[3][4][5] with this one[6] complete with sales pitch: The Chabad House is not funded by any central organization or agency. Chabad’s sole sources of income are charitable donations from parents, friends and the local community. Chabad at Texas A&M appreciates and welcomes all donations. For more information about the Chabad Jewish Student Center at Texas A&M University contact Rabbi Yossi or Manya Lazaroff at... The Programs section itself reads like a brochure, and the Staff section is a typical "Meet the Staff" addendum of said brochure, as per this section in WP:IBA: It has section and subsection headers typical of a corporate website such as "Corporate social responsibility", "Mission and Values", "Meet our leaders", "Our Partners", "Become a member", "Stories and News", "Investor Relations", "Success Stories", "Community Outreach", "Get involved", "Contact information". StonyBrook (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how is the fact that I am a Chabad rabbi related to my opinions here, which are, as you may have noticed, based in a firm knowledge of the pertaining policies and guidelines (more firmly than the nominator, in any case)? I demand you to retract your comment which tries to detract from the weight of my opinion and arguments by argument of association. And yes, I seem you told me that you have an issue with Chabad. So maybe you have some bias as well? Debresser (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have chosen to publicly state your associations, which is useful for other editors to assess whether or not you have a WP:COI healthy bias in any particular debate, which is very plausible here since you are not heeding policies such as WP:ORG. You are now straying into WP:NPA and WP:AGF territory, and the boomerang is now on you to retract statements. Where have I ever told you I have a "problem with Chabad? StonyBrook (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I, living in Israel, have a COI with an organization in Texas? It's like saying that every Catholic, including one in Paraguay, has a COI regarding some obscure Irish bisschop, like Neil Farren, for example.
It is the nominator who tries to use WP:ORG inappropriately, since the relevant section of that page, which is WP:NCHURCH has a less strict notability definition than he misleadingly uses.
I will remove (not just strike) my comment, as soon as you heed my demand to remove yours. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or alternatively Redirect to Texas A&M University (similar to how UCLA Chabad House is done, with just a short description section given to it). As it currently is this page is no less than common Chabad religious propaganda, which is one of the manners in which this organization leverages its financial resources all over the world and in the internet. warshy (¥¥) 16:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterate Delete My vote above is not based on any policy discussion. It is based on reading the page and on knowing the modus operandi of the religious organization, which I also described above. As it currently is this page is not more than standard Chabad religious propaganda. As such it should be deleted. Mention of the specific house can be done in a short section at the school page at the most, in my view. warshy (¥¥) 19:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This a seriously misinformed, ignorant, and borderline antisemitic comment. This article is not religious propaganda and referring to some imagined idea that Chabad uses some invisible vast network of money not only smacks of antisemitic tropes, it is so far removed from reality that it begs whether you know anything at all about Chabad houses. This organization is entirely self-sufficient financially and relies entirely on donations to it specifically. These comments should be retracted immediately and so should the vote since it is based entirely on a completely prejudiced and unfound statement. AriH972 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-religious, rather atheist, but still a cultural and ethnic secular Jew, or as a non-religious secular person of Jewish descent, who has also on occasion throughout his life been the target of anti-Semitic views and opinions, this is the first time I have been labeled myself as an "anti-Semite." Which is rather ridiculous. But it is not surprising at all that such a ridiculous circumstance would arise precisely from a public discussion about the Chabad religious organization. Since Chabad consider themselves the only true form of Judaism, and they view other Jews, particularly all other non-orthodox Jews who do not follow their rebbe or his doctrines, as not "real" Jews, it is not surprising that they would soon also start accusing these other "Jews" of being actually "anti-semites." As a non-religious Jew who has seen, and has also on occasion been the target himself of Chabad religious propaganda, throughout his entire life, I do stand completely by everything I have written above. This page is pure Chabad religious propaganda, and as such should be deleted. warshy (¥¥) 03:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality, Metropolitan90, in view of what I pointed out above, that the relevant guideline is actually WP:NCHURCH, which has less strict criteria, please review your votes above. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2020 (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/Chabad_at_Texas_A%26M_University&oldid=942345280"