Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuchs Mizrachi School

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. Consensus is that GNG is met, although it is not unanimous as to which sources apply towards GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Fuchs Mizrachi School

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Fuchs Mizrachi School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a weirder case of WP:NSCHOOL - while yes, there are a lot of articles that appear at first glance to be talking about the school, the harder you look, the less it actually says about the school. The one article I could find that talked about the school in depth was [1], and it was so flagrantly biased I couldn't use it at all. I could absolutely be wrong here, but I don't think this passes WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Second comment: This hasn't received any coverage at all from a non-regional source, and WP:NSCHOOL pretty clearly says that it has to follow WP:ORG, which this school fails. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, WP:NSCHOOL very clearly says it does not have to pass WP:ORG if it passes the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct, my mistake, but it doesn't pass WP:GNG either. Theleekycauldron (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• I am geographically prevented from accessing the reference. I have looked at SHS_Student_Handbook_1920.pdf and the school does seem to exist, and it looks as if the students do learn something. It may be worth looking whether the authorities have further clues. I am cautious about making judgements about faith schools. The site niche give some statistics. ClemRutter (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete GNG requires multiple sources that are indepdent among other things, at absolute best we have one, which is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know why you had difficulty finding sources. In addition to many, many articles in the Cleveland Jewish News, there are plenty of articles on the school published by other media outlets. - Eureka Lott 19:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@EurekaLott: I found all of those articles. Yes, all of those are articles about the school, but there are significant problems with nearly all of them. The Cleveland Jewish news doesn't seem like a reliable source for anything beyond basic information. The remaining articles there are either not in-depth about Fuchs Mizrachi or not enough to show that the school is notable. In my opinion, the standard of multiple reliable, independent sources is not met, and this fails WP:GNG.Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the sources don't meet your personal standards, but the facts remain that the Cleveland Jewish News is a respected source of local journalism and that we have non-trivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The subject meets our criteria for inclusion. - Eureka Lott 23:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@EurekaLott: First of all, the we/you choice of pronouns to imply that I'm somehow less of a wikipedian than you because you disagree with me is... just annoying. Second, The Cleveland Jewish News has not shown it can be fully neutral in coverage of the school, as shown by this article. Third, asserting that your opinion is the only possible correct one is not only wrong, it's counterproductive to any meaningful discussion. We do not have independent coverage from multiple reliable sources. The Cleveland Jewish News does not establish notability on its own. You disagree? That's fine. The WKYC article is pretty in-depth. I notice you're an administrator; you might do well to be far less condescending. Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Cleveland Jewish News seems like a reliable news source. I think we should keep the article. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep per EurekaLott and CanadianToast. School notability is a bit messy, but overall not the highest of bars compared to the level of coverage schools receive. Passes GNG. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep: I have to agree with Vaticidalprophet. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

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.