Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International PEN (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Speedy keep; snowball clause. JERRY talk contribs 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

International PEN
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Organisation appears to be non-notable. All 3rd party sources in article are actually self-published or press releases from the organisation, and all non-trivial GHITS appear to point to the organisations own sites. Relisted due to premature non-admin closure of previous AfD after 45 minutes and 3 comments. Mayalld (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator Mayalld (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Again, per comments of JdeJ from original AfD nomination, whose outcome was to strongly keep the article. Mh29255 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The outcome of the previous AfD was that somebody took it upon themself to close it within 45 minutes after 3 comments. That isn't an outcome, that is playing silly games with the process Mayalld (talk)
 * Comment I'll have you keep your personal attackes to youself thankyou! Fosnez (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Very surprised at this nomination of an internationally known organisation. Yes, the article itself is poor and lacks sources but this can be rectified. Assume speedy closure of previous AfD was because closing admin also agreed this is clearly a notable subject. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous AfD was a non-admin closure after 45 minutes. Closure of AfD is supposed to be about consensus, not somebody taking it upon themselves to make a decision to refuse a debate Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving the discussion open would only have resulted in a pile-on of surprised 'strong keep' votes. It was in principle correct to close the first discussion per WP:SNOW. However if one editor objects, WP:SNOW does not apply and so this second discussion should run its full course. The organisation is a very well known and long lived international human rights group. I am sourcing some better references for the article now and I'm certain the article can be improved to the point where all editors agree it's viable. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  15:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Organization is internationally well known, with verifiable sources can be easily kept. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As the person "playing silly games" with the process and closing the article per WP:SNOW originally I would to take the time here to say that this renomination is invalid, I have clearly showed that this organisation is notable, sources can be found and I have added some already - This is why I closed the AfD - this article has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted. can someone else please SNOW Close this?. Fosnez (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If it is such a clear case, then it will be eminently suitable for WP:SNOW once a reasonable time for discussion has elapsed. 45 minute and 3 comments is not a reasonable time. Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a thoroughly documented article that provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Notability standard for a clearly notable international organization. This has to be one of the more irresponsible AfDs I have ever seen, as the article makes the clearest possible claims of notability. The nominator has clearly violated Deletion policy which requires nominators to make a good faith effort to research notability and to edit, improve or merge articles before the mad rush to deletion. The quick closure of the first AfD should have been a resounding slap on the head that the AfD was unjustifiable, and this second AfD only compounds the problem. Appropriate administrative measures may need to be taken to prevent future such disruptive abuse of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Oh, it's you again is it? Did you ever read WP:NPA? The quick closure of the first AfD simply told me that somebody had decided to jump the gun before anybody got a chance to discuss it. Yes, the artcle claims notability, but it fails dismally to back it up. At the time it was nominated, it was unreferenced. Then external references were added that turned out to be press releases. Yet again, you accuse me of breaching policy. Perhaps you'd care to quote exactly which bit of the policy I have breached. Perhaps you would also like to stop issuing silly threats. Mayalld (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a good look at Deletion policy, which states that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem." Here are a few warning signs that this just might be a notable article:
 * Article makes explicit claims of notability, including the statement that "It is the world’s oldest human rights organization"
 * The article is one of Wikipedia's oldest, created on September 7, 2004
 * Approximately 200 other articles link to this article
 * While you were unable to find any relevant links in your search, this Google News Archive search on "International PEN" found 2,040 sources, a Google search found 307,000, and The New York Times alone had 132 references in articles since 1981.
 * Again, you are being given a resounding wakeup call that your perceptions of notability are completely out of whack with the rest of Wikipedia. You may want to review relevant Wikipedia policy to help prevent further disruptions. Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * CommentYour quoting WP:NPA? Thats a bit rich. I believe this would be the part of the deletion policy he is refering to: Reasons for deletion
 * Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
 * All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed Fosnez (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you feel that anything I have said to you was a personal attack, I apologize unreservedly. You clearly believe that my nomination was misguided. I believe that your very rapid closure was misguided. I don't believe that there was any lack of good faith on your part. I do think you were rather premature, but that you believed that WP:SNOW applied. Equally, I hope you will accept that my nomination was made in good faith, and that I had made a bona fide attempt to check for reliable sources before nominating and found none. Sadly, Alansohn seems to be following me around eager to attack me and accuse me of acting in bad faith whenever I nominate anything that does anything other than go for a WP:SNOW deletion outcome Mayalld (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, well i'm gonna try to stay as neutral as possible on this one then... Fosnez (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, if you had searched for sources, there wouldn't have been any need to nominate for deletion. Addhoc (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked. I spent a reasonable amount of time looking at the results. Everything I saw was self-published. If others found good sources, then all well and good, but that doesn't excuse the personal attacks that some are making on me Mayalld (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - based on - appears to be notable. Addhoc (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be pretty clearly notable and passes WP:ORG easily. Even a very quick Google News search showed plenty of substantial reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep don't be ridiculously Mayalld even Britannica have this article. Please do better research before you make another deletion nomination Moravice (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (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.