Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Press for Peace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Avi 18:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Press for Peace

Press for Peace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Small NGO in Kashmir without obvious notability against WP:ORG. Google hits in English have only some 1-line mentions of it, like[1], [2],[3] and [4]. Worthy, but not encyclopedic. See also the AfD debate on its founder. Mereda 12:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The external link given at the bottom of the article appears to be someone's personal homepage. Salad Days 22:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Weak Keep Speedy Keep - If you have ever taken international studies on NGOs and and their impact upon war-torn countries, relief efforts or nation-building, their political contribution to emerging nations is huge. That being said, this NGO seems to meet the first criterion of WP:ORG in that its organization is notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information but fails because it does not have a third party source that meets WP:V. Should another editor find that source and cite it in the article, my vote would change to Strong Keep. Ronbo76 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Vote changed to Speedy Keep - The nominator in the first two Google hits provided the best citations for keeping this article. Violence against Media in Pakistan : October 2006 Report lists an attack against their NGO media office in Pakistan which confirms they are international in scope of operations. Second, the UN Humanitarian Information Center For Pakistan Contact List (please see page 10) hit shows that they are an NGO listed on a humanitarian center website UNHIC.org. Both the attack and contact list have been referenced on the article and cited. The third hit, [http://reliefmedia.org.pk/p_pressclubequip.php INTERNEWS MEDIA EQUIPMENT GRANT TO PRESS CLUBS IN QUAKE REGION (their caps, not mine), details a grant they received. Unknowingly, the nominator provided the independent news articles that demonstate PFP is the subject of media reports which meet WP:V. Ronbo76 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep non appears to undermine argument about notability by providing examples of multiple mentions. citing other afd is irrelevent 'guilt by association' attempt.  ⇒ bsnowball  12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The "multiple mentions" are all trivial, so they don't satisfy WP:ORG "A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject". Mereda 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the reference is to say the least, trivial, with only one mentioning of this NGO. Also, a search for "press for peace" organization in google returns very few hits (519), with nearly none of these related to this NGO.
(Although this might not be of any consequence, their website appears to be down at the moment, despite the fact that their host[5] is up and running.) Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources. If this NGO were sized up as important by third-party printed articles, I'd be inclined to keep the article. As it is, the article is one-sided and reads somewhat like an advertisement, even though it's for a very well-intentioned group. If the work of this NGO were having a large impact, surely someone in the regular media would have noticed it. EdJohnston 21:18, 16 January 2007 (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.