Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arab Media Watch


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Arab Media Watch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article about an organization does not meet the Wikipedia requirements and should very well apply for WP:A7. Without even getting to the un-encyclopedic appearance of the page, this organization no longer exists and that has probably been the case for over 6 years now, it is not notable enough, its website is long inactive www.arabmediawatch.com - and of the three sources provided in the article, two are dead (well, now they lead to an archive), and the third one merely mentions the name of the organization's founder. I say delete. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is loads of coverage of this organisation in this book. Whether it is still operating is irrelevant to notability, per WP:NTEMP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Idea is that this is an organization that operated for a short time and disappeared leaving very little traces and coverage behind to justify being on Wikipedia. Let us examine the book you brought up:
 * Author: Kavitha Rajagopalan - a writer without a single (!) mention on Wikipedia.
 * The book: Has zero reviews on Google Books and only two reviews on Amazon (which could have been a friend or family member, with all due respect to her) - virtually unheard of.
 * Thanks for making my point stronger... Shalom11111 (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Books used as sources, and their authors, do not themselves have to be notable. It is a perfectly reliable source, being published by Rutgers University Press, and has many pages of coverage of Arab Media Watch. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is still not enough to suggest the article should remain; allow me to refer you to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Shalom11111 (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems rather strange that you should dismiss dozens of pages of coverage of this organisation in an academic book published by a major university press, while at the same time claiming that incidental mentions on web sites and in the press are sufficient to "think that saying Hillel Neuer is not notable is a bad(faith) joke". It is clear that you are not here to improve this encyclopedia, but to push a point of view. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. SeraphWiki (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. there;s evidence it was significant in its time, and that's enough for notability. Notability ispermaenent, not just forthings in the present.  DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply to : I'm very surprised to see such a comment coming from an admin. Could you provide the said "evidence"? Because it does not exist in the article, at the very least, and as as I pointed out, that the only secondary source this article has is a 2005 news piece that merely mentions the name of the organization's founder for a quote. Do you believe that this article, considering (again) its state and notability, should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia? Shalom11111 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should it be surprising that an admin realises that the number of times the author is mentioned in Wikipedia and the number of Amazon reviews of a book are utterly irrelevant red herrings when deciding whether a source is acceptable? An academic book published by a major university press is pretty much the best kind of source that you can get. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject has very extensive coverage in the book, published by Rutgers University Press, that I identified above. Together with other coverage found by the Google Scholar and Books searches linked in the nomination this is enough to pass the general notability guideline and Notability (organizations and companies), which I have re-read as advised by Shalom11111. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2018 (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.