Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association des Veuves du Genocide


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Association des Veuves du Genocide

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I found this article while patrolling WP:DUSTY, and prodded, but prod was removed by IP user... Article is about an organization, but makes absolutely no claims of any notable activities... Was unreferenced until said IP came along, but refs are only of the org's name mentioned in a book, no mention of notable activities... no signs of passing WP:ORG... Adolphus79 (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Under each of your links to "find sources" there are large numbers of international mentions of the group. It is a prominent NGO working on issues related to the people harmed by the Rwandan genocide, it has a presence internationally being directly referred to by the Swedish government (as already linked in the article),the UN and many books and newspaper articles in English even though it operates in French and is most well known in France. It is THE principal organization for survivors in Rwanda. 99.151.170.150 (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that source is saying that IBUKA is the principal survivors' organization, not AVEGA. (We don't appear to have an article on IBUKA, but it's discussed at Rwandan Survivors.)  However, I do believe that AVEGA is notable; when I get a chance to look through the sources, I'll write up a keep rationale. --Chris Johnson (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, lots of mentions, but nothing I could find that would be considered substantial coverage, no articles solely about the organization... There are a lot of mere mentions, and none that I saw made any mention of the organization's activities... Show me a reliable source that has isgnificant coverage of this organization and it's activities (enough to cover WP:V and WP:ORG concerns), and I'll consider changing my mind... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that being mentioned on 100 pages of a book is pretty substantial, and that's just what I could find in about half a minute. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Tentative Keep: The English name of the ORG is Association of Genocide Widows which brings up more hits and mentions, but all of them appear to be from the 90s or early 2000s. The copyright date on their webpage is 2006.  The organization may be defunct. Grey Wyvern ⚒  23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not defunct. Some brief press mentions from this year:, , . --Chris Johnson (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Here are some better searches: News, Books and Scholar. Efforts to sell their baskets, including a deal with Macy's, have received attention:, , . A study they did of the prevalence of AIDS among survivors also got news coverage: , .  A protest they held: . This story largely focuses on on the of founders.  A lot of the short references to the organization are quite informative (e.g., their entry in the Dictionary of Genocide).  Phil Bridger's source looks really good too.  There's more than enough verifiable information in very good (often academic) sources to write an encyclopedia article.  I believe there's a WP:CSB issue here; while this level of coverage might be borderline for an American or European organization, it's rather impressive for an organization in Francophone Africa.  --Chris Johnson (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now see, this is what I was talking about, sources to show what they have done that would be notable... I was not purposely trying to be biased, if the same organization had been in America, with as little sources as I could find, I would have just as quickly put it up for AfD... The innumerous mentions in the papers and books are one thing, but nothing that I could find showed anything in the way of notable activities... I have had my name mentioned in several newspapers throughout my life, but that alone does not make me notable... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't saying you were being biased; I have no problem with your nomination and hope this leads to a better article on the group. I was talking about systematic bias in available sources (particularly web-accessible sources).  Given two organizations of equal "importance", one in the US and one in Africa, the one in the US will almost certainly get substantially more coverage.  I think it's worth grading notability "on a curve" when it comes to subjects in the developing world. --Chris Johnson (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per above comments - there are references there, and I know from experience that African topics experience less "mainstream" coverage than others, but we should not use the level of difficulty in finding refs as a benchmark for how notable it is. SteveRwanda (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2009 (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.