Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Families Working Group


 * 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 merge and redirect to Suad Joseph as a clear consensus. I have done the redirect, leaving the history; within the next two days I will see what, if anything, needs to merged (unless anyone likes to do that first). JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arab Families Working Group

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advert for an organisation. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is by them or passing mentions. I didn't find anything better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1. Indiana University Press 2. IDRC (International Development Research Center), which is a Canadian Crown Corporation created by the Parliament of Canada 3. Volume 1, published by the University of California, Davis 4. University of California, Davis 5. A journal published by founder Dr. Suad Joseph in SAGE Journals, that also talked about AFWG 6. Birzeit University 7. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 8. Berfrois 9. UNICEF 10. American University Beirut 11. Social Science Research Council 12. University of Michigan 13. American University, Cairo 14. University of California, Davis 15. IDRC ~dee  ( talk? ) 12:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here are some [English] references I found:
 * Merge and redirect. Despite there being wide coverage in various sources, most of the references say the same thing and I don't think there's all that much content to add. I think this would be better placed in the Suad Joseph article right now and should the organization become larger in the future, we can move it then. ~dee  ( talk? ) 12:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on the sources supplied above
 * 1. Publisher of their report, not independent
 * 2. Funds the group, not independent
 * 3. Piece by founder of group, not independent
 * 4. Piece by founder of group, not independent
 * 5. Piece by founder of group, not independent
 * 6. Minimal coverage of group, uni part of group, not independent
 * 7. Lead author a member of group, not independent
 * 8. Passing mention only
 * 9. Acknowledgment only
 * 10. Only a listing as a funder, not independent
 * 11. Listing as a partner only, not independent
 * 12. Listing as a colaborator, not independent
 * 13. Lead author a member of group, a thanks only, not independent
 * 14. Press release from founders uni that is co-hosted of group, not independent
 * 15. Funds the group, not independent
 * Still nothing for WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge. Per analysis above, coverage is too slight for a standalone article.  Sandstein   21:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom but not completely opposed to a merge. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:48, 22 April 2012 (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.