Tilcayo Cats:Articles for deletion/World Jewish Relief
__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- World Jewish Relief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've been editing this page for a couple of days mostly removing excessive external links to the organisation's website, boldly removing unsourced or improperly sourced content, verifying what I can and tagging what I can't verify. Then, I tried to improve the page by incorporating some secondary and tertiary sources but I've drawn a blank. I am confident that at this point I have explored WP:ATD but after putting together the source assessment table below it's become clear to me that there isn't actually enough significant coverage in independent secondary sources to form an objective overview of this British charity. I contemplated doing prod but doing so would have sent other editors on a wild goose chase for reliable secondary sources which I don't want to do. So I've arrived at the conclusion that AfD is the only way forward.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| File:Blue question mark (italic).svg I think the charities register functions like Companies House in that organisations have to submit their own details but I could be wrong. | Yes It's a legally binding document | No Just a registry | ✘ No | |
| No In this interview https://portal.ehri-project.eu/units/us-005578-irn504457-irn507288 this book's author discusses joining the "Jewish Relief Unit of the Jewish Committee for Relief Abroad, sponsored by the Central British Fund for German Jewry". Therefore, this source isn't independent because she's writing about an organisation that she was a member of. | Yes I've had a good flick through the book and it's very well written, very thorough and well citated. | Yes The book goes into a lot of depth about this organisation's formation. It's just a shame it's not independent. | ✘ No | |
| Yes It's The Guardian | Yes It's The Guardian | No I added this source for verification purposes but it doesn't actually mention World Jewish Relief. | ✘ No | |
| No One of many links to the organisation's website that I removed from the page. | ~ Organisation's websites are reliable up to a point but we can't use them to support notability. | Yes There's lot's of coverage about the organisation's history on their website but it's not independent and can't support notability | ✘ No | |
| No World Cat lists this books publisher as (you guessed it) World Jewish Relief. | ~ Probably reliable up to a point but because it's not independent it's not reliable enough to support notability | Yes It's a book about the organisation. | ✘ No | |
| No I added this source because it's easier to verify than checking Gottlieb's book out of a library but when I researched the author I realised that the author was part of the "Jewish Relief Unit of the Jewish Committee for Relief Abroad, sponsored by the Central British Fund for German Jewry" | Yes I'm not disputing this historian's research skills and literary prowess. It's just a shame it's not independent because WP requires independent secondary sources to verify notability. | Yes It's incredibly detailed and very well-referenced. | ✘ No | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
.svg){kind=link}
𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep While the subject's current iteration fails WP:CORPDEPTH there's probably been enough written about this organisation's earlier iterations in pre-Internet sources to rescue this article and turn it into a C-Class article.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 09:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
- Update I've struck through enwiki contributor entire contribution because it doesn't address the WP:NCORP issue that we're here to discuss.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 08:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment If enwiki contributor doesn't wish to strike out the parts of their comment that aren't relevant to this discussion then would they please expand their comment a little bit? We're trying to determine whether there's enough coverage of this subject in independent reliable sources to justify retaining this article. I struck through your comment to elicit a more detailed response from you and I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment So you want to WP:SNOWCLOSE this discussion and start the page over again per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over?
- Comment Why?𝔓420°𝔓Holla 17:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral I will admit that independent sources about this subject are hard to come by by simply Googling the subject. However, I find it hard to believe that this orgnisation previously known as Central British Fund for German Jewry has no significant coverage. We're talking about an organisation that played a significant part in helping (and I'm choosing my words wisely) establish the state of Israel and save the lives of hundreds if not thousands of children before and during World War Two many of whom became notable people and made notable contributions in their own right. Now it may be that World Jewish Releif is the wrong namespace and perhaps Central British Fund for German Jewry might be a better location for this entry. I just find it hard to believe that an organisation with so much historical significance hasn't had anything written about it by any historians.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Strong KeepI agree. I'll go to the library and see if I can find something a bit more independent than the Gottlieb book and thanks for your help here enwiki contributor. I wonder if a WP:SNOWCLOSE is possible now? I feel there's a consensus in the air.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 06:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment While I appreciate the historical context provided, this does not overcome the fundamental notability issues under WP:NCORP and WP:ORGDEPTH. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources is required; passing mentions in histories of the Holocaust or the founding of Israel, or coverage that is not independent of the subject, are insufficient per the SNG. The source table indicates a lack of such coverage for both the current and predecessor names. I would suggest a thorough search of pre-Internet academic journals, books by unaffiliated historians, and major news archives (beyond routine announcements) before considering a rename or merge. As it stands, this appears to fail our notability standards for organizations. SimEditor08 (talk) 05:01, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for weighing in, SimEditor08 – always good to have fresh eyes on these. I can see where you're coming from with the NCORP/ORGDEPTH point, and the source table does look thin at first glance. That said, given the organisation's role in the Kindertransport and its links to the founding of Israel, I'm hopeful a deeper dive into pre-Internet histories and academic journals (as you suggest) might turn up the independent coverage we're after. I'd be wary of a straight delete until we've exhausted those avenues. Perhaps a Draftify could give us breathing room to build a stronger case? Either way, really appreciate the civil tone here. Taz will probably swing by later to tidy any stray punctuation I’ve left :) Sam 12:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Under TL:N, notability requires three independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage; subject-specific guidelines such as NCORP or ORGDEPTH are not valid here. The three best sources shown in the thread are the Gottlieb book (fails independence as it appears connected to the subject), passing mentions in Holocaust or Israel-founding histories (fail significance), and routine announcements (fail independence and depth). No qualifying sources have been demonstrated. I suggest the nominator or volunteers conduct the pre-Internet search proposed before any close; a Draftify may be considered if new sources emerge, but only on the merits. Oscar 18:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)