World Jewish Relief: 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.  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment table: Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/290767/governance ?  I think the charities register functions like Companies House in that organisations have to submit their own details but I could be wrong.  It's a legally binding document Just a registry ✘ No https://archive.org/details/menofvision00amyz/page/99/mode/2up 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.  I've had a good flick through the book and it's very well written, very thorough and well citated.  The book goes into a lot of depth about this organisation's formation.  It's just a shame it's not independent.  ✘ No https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jan/05/windermere-children-arek-hersh-survivor-bbc-drama It's The Guardian It's The Guardian I added this source for verification purposes but it doesn't actually mention World Jewish Relief.  ✘ No http://www.wjr.org.uk/about-us/ 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.  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 https://search.worldcat.org/title/31047514? oclcNum=31047514 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 It's a book about the organisation.  ✘ No https://www.gale.com/intl/essays/amy-zahl-gottlieb-central-british-fund-world-jewish-relief-first-ten-years 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" 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.  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 }} .  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England .  Delta space 42 ( talk • contribs ) 16:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Judaism .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 09:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : per source assessment table and WP:TNT , given it was tagged for conflict of interest for over a year.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 05:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Hi बिनोद थारू thanks for your contribution.  Your WP:TNT idea is viable.  However, WP:AFD discussions are to determine whether there is enough coverage, independent of the subject to create a coherent encyclopaedia entry about the subject.  Anything else is off-piste.  Therefore, I have struck through the last part of your contribution because it isn't relevant to this discussion.  Thanks for understanding.  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 07:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update I've struck through बिनोद थारू's entire contribution because it doesn't address the WP:NCORP issue that we're here to discuss.  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 08:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If बिनोद थारू 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.  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As shown in the source table above, none of the sourcing used to build this article is WP:INDEPENDENT , prompting a WP:TNT delete.  Also, I struggle to find significant coverage on Google that meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH .  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just wanted to check to see if you are aware that I created the source evaluation table above when I took this article to WP:AFD ?  Hence why I am encouraging you to base your comments on your research, not mine.  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment So you want to WP:SNOWCLOSE this discussion and start the page over again per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over ?  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GDX420 ( talk • contribs ) 16:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes.  बिनोद थारू ( talk ) 16:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Why?  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 17:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  17:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep I'm sure we can find pre-internet sources.  No Swan So Fine ( talk ) 22:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep I 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 No Swan So Fine .  I wonder if a WP:SNOWCLOSE is possible now?  I feel there's a consensus in the air.  𝔓 420° 𝔓 Holla 06:24, 2 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep