Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Muslims United


 * 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. consensus to keep - merge and redirect discussion can continue on the talkpage (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Former Muslims United

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear to be notable - all GNews and GBooks hits are trivial, and often are actually things like "Darwish is founder of Former Muslims United" rather than actual coverage of the organizations. (Darwish seems to be notable, but notability is not inherited.) No significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Strong Keep - Very notable, decent press. It is a new organization and seems to be growing. --Antwerpen Synagoge (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked sock. See Sockpuppet investigations/אֶפְרָתָה -- DQ  (t)   (e)  20:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide examples of some of this "decent press"? I've stated that everything I found is either trivial or is not actually coverage of the group, so it would be helpful if you would respond to this criticism with examples of sources that I might have missed. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - nearly a million hits on Google, reasonably notable board of directors. - Haymaker (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So "they have a lot of Google hits, and notable people are associated with them"? Ie. exactly the WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:INHERITED arguments I addressed in my nomination? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, this is clearly a notable organization based on sources that can be readily found using Google search (including Google Scholar and Books).Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you provide examples of some of these sources? I've stated that everything I found is either trivial or is not actually coverage of the group, so it would be helpful if you would respond to this criticism with examples of sources that I might have missed. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What about a merge to Nonie Darwish? Notability is marginal at best but the info might still make a good fit there. If there is more coverage later the article can be restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any content to be merged (the Darwish article already mentions the group, it just quotes a mission statement rather than generically describing them). If there were content, I'd support a merge, but there doesn't really seem to be anything. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (would a redirect be good?) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant    talk    17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Smarkflea (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a reason? In particular, if you have sources that other editors might not have found, could you link them or add them to the article? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, possibly merge and redirect to Nonie Darwish. There is some press about the group.  Not all of it mentions Darwish, but as others have correctly noted, the current article doesn't say much that couldn't be suitably covered at the Darwish article.  I do think there is a smidgen of additional content that might be added to that article, identifying the group in more detail and mentioning a few of its notable activities.  So I think this is a keep (as a reasonable search term if nothing else), but a merge and redirect may be appropriate by post-AfD editorial consensus.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The stories you linked have the same problem I've been telling every other editor about. They are either not third-party sources (an editorial by the group's president is not independent coverage) or their mention is absolutely trivial. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we have a good faith disagreement about what is "absolutely trivial". In my reading, this group has managed to insert itself notably into a number of notable controversies.  In the end, I am not sure we are disagreeing about very much: I would in all probability be fine with a merge/redirect to Nonie Darwish (until there's more substance here), so all we're really talking about here is whether to keep the edit history of this article with the redirect.  Per WP:PRESERVE, I see no reason not to do so, given the existence of actual sources which would be useful in the Darwish article and in the future if there's good cause to restore this as a separate article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep Notable. I have added references from the NY Times, Huffington Post, NY Post, Fox, CBN, and others. --Vaerju (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2011 (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.