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. Seems a rough consensus that level of advertising is not so enormous as to warrant deletion and that improvement is possible. My thanks to any editor who helps address any issues (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Bat Kol (organization) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Extremely promotional page that in my eyes qualifies for G11. Nominating as a contested speedy deletion. » Shadowowl | talk 00:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep If the page is too promotional, that can be fixed by editing instead of deleting. Bat Kol seems to pass WP:GNG, see articles in The Forward, Times of Israel and Ha'aretz. Rab V ( talk) 08:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep No doubt it requires work and adding of sources but it better stay as is than disappear. It has a lot of valuable information. Kigelim ( talk) 10:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• May need some work but keep per WP:NORG and WP:SOFIXIT. Articles that meet the relevant standard should never be listed for speedy deletion. gidonb ( talk) 17:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Appears to have sufficient coverage to qualify under WP:GNG. It needs some tidying up in the language used, but it is a solvable issue. Hzh ( talk) 09:13, 23 August 2018 (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.