Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TELL MAMA


 * 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 delete. Will userfy on request as several contributors have recommended this.  Spinning Spark  23:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

TELL MAMA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one of those entities that looks like it might be notable, only upon examination, it's shown otherwise. Let's look at the sourcing:


 * A press release by the group's founder
 * A press release from "Stop Hate UK"
 * A blog post
 * Another blog post, from the group's own blog
 * A press release from Nick Clegg
 * A link, now dead, to a government site
 * A press release from the Muslim Council of Britain
 * A poster
 * A podcast
 * A blog post
 * Another blog post, from "HOPE not hate"
 * An opinion piece
 * Passing mention in a local paper
 * A comment on a local newspaper's site
 * A blog post from the Christian Council of Britain
 * A blog post
 * A YouTube video
 * A blog post by the group's founder on the "HOPE not hate" site
 * A press release
 * Another press release
 * Yet another press release
 * A report put out by the group itself
 * A press release on the site of an AM
 * The site of the group's founder
 * A press release from "Ethnic Minority Liberal Democrats"
 * A blog archive
 * An official page for the group's founder
 * A news article that mentions the group not at all
 * A blog post

The threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is evidently not met. I'm sure this is a worthy initiative, but our job is to reflect real-world notability, not generate it. And by the way, the related Hope not Hate is plagued with similar issues. Biruitorul Talk 15:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment TELL MAMA/Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks has some coverage in news media but mainly used as a source of information rather than as the main subject, so it may not be notable even though it does receive UK government funding. It seems to be connected to various other organisations under which heading it might be covered: e.g. it's an initiative of Faith Matters; and it may merit a mention under Islamophobia if that had a nation-by-nation section. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand the nom's concern with some of those sources, it seems to me the author(s) decided to cram every link they could find in there. I think the GNG threshold is not being met here. Removing the unimportant blog articles and self-published stuff, we have some minor references from governmental entities in the UK and recognized Muslim organizations, but I don't think that's enough. Google and Bing don't really show that this has received significant third-party coverage. All in all I think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. § FreeRangeFrog 20:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It's clear that many of the sources are not reliable, independent sources. The remaining links, including press releases from sources not directly affiliated with the organization, should be enough to establish notability as per WP:GNG. I agree that it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. §everal⇒|Times 18:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing press releases is discouraged under WP:SPS (which is sensible, given their lack of peer review and promotional purpose); I still don't see independent coverage justifying an article at this point. - Biruitorul Talk 22:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite aware of the policy, though I'm also aware that few sources are fully impartial, especially when non-profit organizations are concerned. For that reason I might consider this press release as a contributor to notability while all the blog posts are not -- unless they are written by established experts, as stated under WP:SPS. §everal⇒|Times 00:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not full impartiality we demand of sources, but a certain degree of distance between subject and source. Thus it's one thing to have a politician's office announcing he's throwing some taxpayer money at an organization (the press release in question); it would be quite another to have a newspaper reporting said politician has thrown money at said group. Even if the press release is to be included, there should at least be some independent coverage; an article can't legitimately stand alone on first-hand material of this type. - Biruitorul Talk 03:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  15:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm weeding through the sources now and I'm removing a lot of them that are pretty blatantly unusable as either a trivial or reliable source. I would venture to say that this blog: could be usable since the guy who wrote it is a sociologist that is considered an authority on Islamophobia. I'm going to wade through the rest of them, but I want to state here as well as on the article's page that listing multiple sources that aren't considered to be reliable or even trivial can often backfire because rather than make it look more notable, it actually makes it look less notable. I know that I usually see it this way: "if you feel like you need to add 30+ sources that are unusable as sources in any context, it means that there must not be anything out there to show notability at all." I'm not going to condemn it so soon, but I do want to state that doing citation overkill can often discredit a page pretty quickly.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral/Userfy. I'm kind of torn on this one. This organization seems to be right on the cusp of gaining notability, but it seems like it's a little too soon right now for it to have an article. After trimming the sources to remove the ones that were either citation overkill of the same thing or outright unusable, here's what I have left:
 * 1) This is a trivial source that merely confirms that its founder also created Faith Matters. Trivial sources can't show notability no matter how many you use and notability is not inherited by the founder potentially being a person notable enough for his own article.
 * 2) The organization is mentioned in this source, but while it's not exactly a brief mention it's not really an in-depth mention either. It shows that the organization is quoted and would be potentially usable as a RS for backing up information in other articles, but it doesn't really show a lot of notability.
 * 3) Primary source, can't show notability. I used this mostly to back up a small factoid.
 * 4) This one is fairly good. The author of this article is considered to be an authority, so him writing an article on TELL MAMA would be usable. The only issues I have stem from the facts that he's speaking at the launch of the project (meaning that this could be considered primary) and this reads almost like it was taken predominantly from a press release from the service.
 * 5) This confirms that the group received funding. They are the main focus of the article, but I'm not sure that this is the sort of thing that gives notability.
 * 6) It's briefly mentioned here, so only usable as a trivial source.
 * 7) This is a news report by Al Jazeera and the link is posted by the news organization. It appears to be about the group so this would potentially be usable to show notability.
 * 8) This actually goes into detail about the service's launching, so it's usable.
 * 9) This one I'm halfsies on whether it's usable or not as a RS because I'm not familiar with the site. However, this is yet another report of the service launching- we need more than just reports of it launching to show a depth of coverage.
 * 10) I left this one on because it's a local council, although this would probably be more of a potentially trivial source than one that could show notability. I think that this is also one of the groups that partner with TELL MAMA, so it'd be something that would be considered WP:PRIMARY because of this.
 * 11) This is a blog by the group's founder, so it's a primary source.
 * 12), These are both Press TV pieces, one of which is uploaded by Faith Matters. I'm unsure as to whether PTV would be usable as a source to show notability.
 * I'm just sort of neutral on this. The organization has received more notice than some, but most of this has been to state that the program has launched and that it exists. I think that it's just a little too soon for an article about this specifically, so I recommend userfying it to the original editor for him to work on. It's likely that it will gain more coverage to where notability would not be a question, but we can't guarantee that it will. Stuff does happen, after all. What I recommend in the meantime is that we look for alternatives, such as creating a subsection in Faith Matters about the program (since they're coordinating it) and redirecting to that section. If notability can be shown for the service's founder, it's possible that we could create an article for him with a subsection about TELL MAMA and redirect there, although I think at this time it'd be better as a subsection and redirect to Faith Matters, as they're the main force for the service and Mughal is a part of Faith Matters. As far as the group's association with notable persons or groups, notability is not inherited.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Userify or Delete with no prejudice. A recently founded charity getting their message out, and that message carried willingly by supporters. What is needed in in depth coverage by independent sources, which isn't likely in the very short term, unless they score some very big / high profile wins (anything possible in politics). Stuartyeates (talk) 18:47, 30 November 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.