Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maradeka
- 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Maradeka
- Maradeka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per
WP:GNG, I am nominating this article for deletion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It's an awful article written as an advertisement, filled with fanboyism, poor English prose and many dead links. A number of the citations are not directly relevant to the article's subject matter. That being said, there does seem to be an amount of coverage which reaches a somewhat significant level. Among the thirty someodd references, around half of them are correctly used and the coverage of this organization in reputable news sources in Southeast Asia goes back a few years. The latest coverage is still recent and it seems that the organization, while not exceptionally notable, at least passes the minimum for WP:GNG as well as seeming to have increased in news coverage during the past year or so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)]
- Please show us this significant coverage that indicates that this organization meets GNG?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)]
- For instance:
- Violent Internal Conflicts in Asia Pacific: Histories, Political Economies, and Policies. Yayasan Obor Indonesia. 1 January 2005. p. 193. ISBN 978-979-461-514-0.
- Subject of this AfD is only given a single sentence
- Benjamin Cole (27 September 2006). Conflict, Terrorism and the Media in Asia. Routledge. pp. 75–76. ISBN 978-1-134-26394-3.
- Subject of this AfD is only briefly mentioned
- Violent Internal Conflicts in Asia Pacific: Histories, Political Economies, and Policies. Yayasan Obor Indonesia. 1 January 2005. p. 193.
- "Trivial mentions" do not meet WP:SIGCOV.
- The subject was also mentioned twice in this news article, but the subject of this AfD is not that news article's primary topic, and does not give significant coverage to the organization that is the subject of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please show us this
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree that there is no significant coverage and this article is a misuse of Wikipedia's purpose. This article should be deleted and only re-written when proper coverage can be found and the article written to our standards. Op47 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Response to @RightCowLeftCoast:, just to explain my reasoning earlier. Like I said, maybe half the references on this article do mention the organization in question. For some reason, several of the links which were working prior to my comment are now yielding those "404 not found" error messages - not sure why. There are at least two articles where the group is the central article, like this one from Gulf News. The one you posted from Inquirer does feature the group prominently, though - it's not as insigificant as your comment seems to imply. I'd say this other article from Inquirer is more insignificant. This, coupled with the dead links from other mainstream media sites (there are tools to fix dead links), does seem to imply that the group is barely notable in terms of mainstream media coverage over a long period of time. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- The Gulf News article is about the comment made by the organization in relation to the in-depth content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)]
- The Gulf News article is about the comment made by the organization in relation to the
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:30, 15 November 2014 (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.