Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PNM Abroad


 * 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   redirect to People's National Movement. There is a clear consensus that PNM Abroad should not have its own article at this point, but several editors support the idea of a redirect and only one editor argues explicitly against a redirect. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

PNM Abroad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable "organisation". No sourced claim to notability. Cannot find substantial mention in reliable sources. Begoon &thinsp; talk 09:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * see also: Articles for deletion/Pearce Robinson Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Only attempt at sourced notability seems to be, amounting to: "He sent a letter to a Minister, and got a reply from a subordinate". The other claimed source , actually says: "It’s difficult keeping up with the number of PNM blogs which are all over Facebook and other social media including PNM, PNM tv, PNM Abroad, PNM Mediamagnum and a host of others". I cannot find anything of significance in any RS. Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also Just for fun, try: v File:PNM Abroad.jpg which was in the article at time of posting this. These guys sure seem to put up a few posters around the place.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How did they do that? As you say, those guys have sure been busy! --  Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not purport to be anybody notable just subscribers to the PNM Abroad Organization. We thought creating an article of this nature would be beneficial, since the organization reaches out to so many people across the world. At least those interested in T&T politics. What warrants this page to be deleted?. You have given good reason for the other page we made. But not for this one and we contest it outright, because it is unjustified. We even agreed with you that the other page ought to be deleted speedily and sent to a sandbox. But not this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor2012 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We dont think this page should be deleted. The other one yes but not this one. (Distributor2012 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Who are "we"? Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't mean for you to name yourself, I was just trying to ascertain if you were working with the organisation in any way, because you seem awfully keen to include this information, and it doesn't seem notable enough, I'm sorry. I removed the names, because I wasn't trying to get you to reveal personal information at all, and I'm sorry that happened. If you want the names back in, please re-add them, or ask - it's difficult to know I'm doing the right thing, here. The problem is that I cannot find a single reference in a reliable source that discusses anything notable about this organisation. The rest of my concerns are above. I've already said more than enough, so I shan't comment here again. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am contesting the deletion process. I find it arbitrary and unfair. What is so wrong with this article now. If you require evidence please feel free to contact the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Keith Rowley or you can even contact PNM Abroad on the following admin at pnmabroad.org. All of the information you require is on their various websites. Unless you guys pick and chose what Political Organization in the world is relevant or newsworthy over others. (DavidHanity (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC))

http://pnmabroad.org/about-pnm-abroad/ did anyone bother to look a this page?. Also I just noticed some of your unprofessional comments. He is not just some student, he has done alot for his country and invested his own money. Try doing proper research before you guys open your mouths.(DavidHanity (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Delete In response to DavidHanity, "we" do not pick and choose which political organisation is relevent or newsworthy. The international media, as represented by reliable sources does that; and since it does not appear to have deemed PNM Abroad either relevent or newsworthy, a Wikipedia article is not warranted. See the relevent guidelines at WP:NOTE and WP:ORG. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh is that correct so press from Trinidad and Tobago is not referenced as International Media? Am I to understand that for your utterances. (DavidHanity (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC))
 * David, if you can provide sources that cover this organisation from Trinidad and Tobago then please by all means do. I and the other contributors to this discussion have drawn a blank, but if you can produce in-depth coverage of PNM Abroad in any reliable sources, per the guidelines, then I and any other honest editor will happily !vote to keep the article. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete(Dr.PeterRobertson (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the contribution, Dr.Robertson. Because you appear to be a very new contributor, you may not have realised that this is a discussion, rather than a vote. That's why you'll see some people around here use the term !vote, in recognition of that. What that means, is that when the discussion is closed, the person closing it will not just count the votes - they will assess the validity and relevance of argument expressed on both "sides" of the discussion. So, just saying Don't Delete, whilst it is probably better than saying nothing at all, doesn't add to the weight of argument against deletion. In this case, to do that, it would seem the requirement would be provision of in depth coverage of this subject by an independent, secondary, reliable source. Apologies for the length of reply - I just wanted to take the time to explain what could be an unfamiliar process to you. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to explain the process to me. I think the article is fine from what i've read so far. Might need a little more sourcing in terms of reliable source. However, is it that we delete articles or vote on the process of deletion based on a lack of adequate sourcing? User:Begoon. I have personally seen some articles that don't have any references at all. So far it seems like a straight forward article providing useful information. I am very familiar with Caribbean politics, having travelled to the region for many years. However, my field is Social Anthropology and Mathematical Statistics. I recall being in Trinidad for there last elections i think it was in mid to late 2010 and I recall them mentioning this on the television. Well I will let you guys continue discussing, since it appears I am late to add any contributions to the matter. (Dr.PeterRobertson (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
 * There is a link in Yunshui's post above, I'll relink here: WP:GNG, the General Notability guidelines. That will, I hope, help to answer your questions about notability. There's also WP:ORG, for organisations, which has this to say: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Thanks for the interest in how this works, and I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Begoon &thinsp; talk  06:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [adding p.s. It is certainly not too late to contribute to this discussion if you can provide the evidence of notability required. Sorry, I missed that part of your comment first time round.] Begoon &thinsp; talk

Hi guys, I actually found a news report on a TT radio indian station about this. [| 103fm T&T Radio Indian Network]. I found a couple of others, but they are blogs.(Dr.PeterRobertson (talk) 10:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
 * I strongly commend your effort to find sources, kudos for that. Unfortunately, this one doesn't constitute "significant coverage", which is what's required to establish notability. It would be ideal to establish that Pearce Robinson heads PNM Abroad, but only once PNM Abroad's notability has been established. This needs a source that talks about the organisation in more depth, rather than just mentioning them. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's all I can do for this one, I think I searched well. Cheers! (Dr.PeterRobertson (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC))
 * I think you did too (I certainly didn't find that source myself). Sadly, some stuff just ain't notable. Top marks for effort, though. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's commendable, too, when a new editor finds a discussion like this and puts in time and effort to try and help to find a source like that, which we had been unable to. Sad, as you say, that it doesn't help establish notability. Many thanks again to Dr.PeterRobertson for all his efforts here. Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, without prejudice to putting information in People's National Movement, and possibly a redirect. As a national political party, PNM certainly warrants Wiki Page, and there's no reason why branches of the party can't get a mention there. However, there seems to be near zero coverage about PNM in its own right. Normally I would suggest a merge, but given that the vast majority of this article is unsourced and at least one bit of the article (the picture) has been shown as misleading, I just don't think anything in the article is reliable enough to be worth preserving. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there was any evidence that this "organisation" is the "official" overseas arm of the PNM, then I would agree it was worthy of a brief mention in the main PNM article or a redirect. However, other than their own statement on their website, a facebook page, a few comments on some blogs and the 2 minor mentions of someone getting a reply from a Minister's office to a letter they wrote (I'd be disappointed if Ministers didn't ensure that their subordinates reply to all letters they receive), both on local online news/music sites, there doesn't seem to be anything along those lines. Maybe I'm just missing it. If I'm absolutely honest, probably the amount of "puffery" contained in these articles, and arguably outright deception with the faked image and its description at least, has made me a little reluctant to take anything said by sources related to the "organisation" at face value without independent sources.
 * I only came across this article at all through responding to a malformed "protected edit request" at Talk:Pearce Robinson, which basically said "Please stop other people from editing my article". During subsequent attempts to help it began to become clear to me that there was no foundation in reliable sources for any of it. I've been following it since then. Begoon &thinsp; talk  22:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - despite the best efforts of the article's creator and Dr.PeterRobertson, there is no real evidence that this organisation is sufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own, although it may just deserve a mention in the main People's National Movement article.  --   Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete - I created the photo on a website with their logo. That isn't really how there logo is I just made that because the normal logo by itself looks boring. But PNM Abroad if you check former Prime Minister of TT Patrick Manning''s page and the PNM's official FB page they both link back to PNM ABROAD [] and secondly [] That alone should prove its an official arm(Distributor2012 (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Distributor2012 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As User talk:Begoon referenced earlier when he pointed to and took the following extract: "It’s difficult keeping up with the number of PNM blogs which are all over Facebook and other social media including PNM, PNM tv, PNM Abroad, PNM Mediamagnum and a host of others" This shows that the PNM has a very huge online and social community and by looking at the official pages of both the former PM and the Party fb page it clearly points to an association. What one now has to ask yourself is... why would the party page and former PM's page link back to PNM Abroad if this is just some fake organization???(Distributor2012 (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Nobody here has said, or implied that the organisation is "fake". I have commented on the amount of undue "puffery" in the articles, and the misleading fake image. I have no doubt PNM Abroad exists - it has a website, and a Facebook page, I've seen them... What I haven't been able to find is the evidence of meeting the WP:GNG that is necessary, as explained. As another editor has mentioned above, if that were present, no honourable editor would vote to delete here. Begoon &thinsp; talk  08:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have just alluded to you that I created the image on the billboard using fotofunia. But the logo itself on the billboard is theirs. So would you suggest a rewrite or redirection? Because deletion is not warranted. I didn't realize hypothetical images were such a big deal on Wikipedia its still the logo nonetheless, bit I am guided and will remove if that is what is requested. (Distributor2012 (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Oh, ok: since I nominated the Article for deletion, my default position will be taken as "Delete" by the closer, as I understand it, unless I state otherwise. I haven't, unfortunately, seen or found anything that would be enough to move me from that default "Delete" position. (at first, I wondered why you asked, since my position seems evident, but then I realised you might be expecting to see a bolded vote from me - so I understand now, I think.) Begoon &thinsp; talk  09:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ohh ok I understand (Distributor2012 (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC))


 * This discussion is about the notability or otherwise of the article; to discuss the deletion of the image, please use it's nomination page at Commons. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge with People's National Movement since this is just the overseas branch of the party.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, if there were any real evidence in RS of PNM Abroad being an official overseas branch of PNM, I would wholeheartedly agree with this. However, I haven't seen that evidence, merely a claim on their own website, and some Facebook links. Without such evidence, this could just be one of the "many PNM blogs" it is "hard to keep track of" from the quote I gave above. If it is the official overseas branch, then we should be able to source that. Apologies if I've just missed the necessary evidence in the long discussion. If I'm missing the point, and the references to the "sent a letter to a minister and got reply" are being taken as sufficient to demonstrate "official" party status, I'm afraid I disagree that they are sufficiently notable or specific. If I'm missing something else in this long discussion I do apologise, but please point to it. Perhaps, though, we could include a mention of the "many blogs" into the main article and list this as one of them, if we consider that kind of mention notable. That seems to be all we have a source for. Personally, I would delete this article, and submit any suggestions for such merged content to the other article talk page for discussion, because I'm not sure if that "list of blogs" content would be considered notable.  Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. A Google search turns up no evidence of third-party coverage apart from the Guardian piece and the passing mention in the TNT Mirror article, neither of which constitute in-depth coverage.  Searching the Mirror website for the phrase "pnm abroad" yields nothing more about them.  Nor does PNM Abroad appear to be linked or discussed on the PNM website: the site's search function appears to be broken, giving "No records found" even for search terms like "trinidad"; but I don't find PNM Abroad mentioned in the "History" section, or in "Party units", or in any other part of the site that might logically list the party's official tentacles.  That leads me to question their standing as an official branch of the party; and in any case, my Google search has persuaded me that the organization fails WP:GNG.  Ammodramus (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * merge This is a branch of an organization, the [People's National Movement]], and should, by our normal practices, be covered briefly there. It's a reasonable redirect.  DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a reasonable redirect if we can point to reliable sources that this is a branch of the party, and not just a keen, independent blog/website. I still don't see how we can determine, other than vague mentions in the few provided sources that don't seem to determine this, and assertions in self published sources, that PNM Abroad is related to the PNM. Not trying to badger at all - just confused that others seem to see what I can't, and I have looked. Begoon &thinsp; talk  05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect: to People's National Movement. That this organization might be based around a blog or a website is irrelevant to the issue; the premise of what makes a reasonable redirect is the likelihood of use as a search term.  I think it's reasonable to conclude that it is, and whether or not this is an "official" branch of the party (a merger being inappropriate otherwise), people may well use it as a search term for the party.  Ravenswing  08:59, 20 January 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.