Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matter of the Jews

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. The article has been moved to The Jewish cause: an introduction to a different Israeli history. There is consensus that cleanup is needed, but no consensus regarding exactly what should be done. As the author Moshe Berent is a redlink it cannot be merged to that title. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Matter of the Jews

[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)

Non-notable book lacking WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE search yields only irrelevant results and the single source used in the article is not a review, rather just information about the book that does not verify notability. Fails WP:NBOOK. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify There seems to be perfectly usable references, and possibly reviews to show notability in the Hebrew WP version of the article, as judged by Google Translate. I think it's reckless nominating an article for deletion for lack of sourcing without checking the linked WP article in the relevant language. IThisdoes not seem to be an actual translation, but similar to the situationwhere people translate parts of an article from another WP without also transcribing the references. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: Added "External links" section, renamed per WorldCat -- Thanks for motivating me to add external links and adjust the title according to WorldCat. These corrections were absolutely necessary. The book made quite a splash, and Berent is being constantly invited to talk about it on high-brow shows, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc. This makes it a very notable and salient topic. --Guybas (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guybas: What's needed is independent, reliable sources in form of citations, such as reviews and awards, not descriptions and podcasts/videos. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WaddlesJP13: Please note that the Open University of Israel and Ariel University are in fact independent and reliable sources. Both provide academic reviews: the former as a lengthy seminar / discussion, the latter as a critique / review article.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NBOOK based on the sources in the Hebrew language wiki.4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - until those other sources are added to the article (or there is a discussion in English on whether they are reliable). - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as a mage for the author; . It's not his only book. We need coverage of alternative views. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We cannot have an article on every book that is published. The external links appear to be links to reviews, which means there are enough sources. However, I do not know if the book is notable (if not, delete). If it is controversial, the content of the reviews criticising it ought to be covered. Otherwise it is a mere ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2021 (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.