Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kol Menachem

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. Skomorokh 01:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kol Menachem[edit]

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

This is a non-notable publishing house. All the sources either give a very brief description or are reviews of editions of books published by the house or are sources which are not independent (being other sources run by Chabad. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course it's notable; the Gutnick edition of the Chumash has become very popular worldwide. And there are three non-Chabad references cited in the article discussing the publications of this publishing house. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject fails WP:ORG so far as I can tell, as I cannot find significant coverage. That guideline also states, "'Notable' is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are 'important' are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." I therefore disagree with YO's argument and fully agree with JoshuaZ's. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references cited in the article show that it has attracted notice. How much more notice do you think it needs to be notable? -- Zsero (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those references are to independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of Kol Menachem? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable publishing house which only gets a few hits on the first page of Google[1]. What is notable is the Gutnick Chumash, which is listed under Chumash (Judaism)#Various Publications. (It should also be listed under Jewish commentaries on the Bible#20th and 21st century commentary.) Perhaps the Gutnick edition deserves its own article? Yoninah (talk) 12:56, 9 February 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.