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 keep. Wily D 08:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B.a.B.e.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to lack of established notability in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Sources provided primarily mention the subject only in passing. The Nacional mentions the subject in an article about financial and ethical improprieties made by the president of the organization and the Knin article mentions the subject in passing in a promotional piece for a book in which the org participated in the development and the org's president wrote. Nothing to indicate significant coverage in order to establish notability. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

here you can see regular presence of this organization in media in Croatia. Organization is regularly "marginally" asksed for comments on social issues:

1)Croatian Radiotelevision, (http://www.hrt.hr/index.php?id=174)

2) Novosti (Croatia), (http://www.novossti.com/?s=b.a.b.e.)

3) Jutarnji list, (http://www.jutarnji.hr/search.do?searchString=b.a.b.e.&publicationId=1&sortString=by_date_desc)

4) RTL Televizija, (http://www.rtl.hr/pretrazivanje/?upit=B.a.B.e.)

5) Al Jazeera Balkans, (http://balkans.aljazeera.net/makale/silovanje-namjerna-ratna-taktika)

6) Central European University, Page 277. http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2011/gphmid01.pdf

7) University of Zagreb, Page 37. http://cim.fpzg.hr/uploaded/UNESCO_Media_Development_indicators.pdf

8) Women and Citizenship in Central and Eastern Europe, Page 282., http://books.google.hr/books?hl=hr&lr=&id=peMQZmGpUIMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA265&dq=%22B.a.B.e.%22+croatia&ots=0IaII8J4pd&sig=mewMYK3mieuXNDqzxYAHlNZh0Xc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22B.a.B.e.%22%20croatia&f=false

It may be a little harder to find sources that talk about what is B.a.B.e. since they are generally known name in Croatian society. Best regards, --MirkoS18 (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. A review of these links show that none are actually about the organization. Can you find any sources that significantly provide information about the subject of this article rather than a peripheral mention? Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 15:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That I think is the question. Can article we saved by adequate sourcing? Dlohcierekim 17:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are certainly better known in the .hr public life than a crapload of .hr people with articles on en:. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query .hr? Dlohcierekim 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see .hr, used here as abbreviation.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Shoulda known. Dlohcierekim 23:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Searching B.a.B.e. + Croatia gets much better results about the group. It's notable and interesting, especially to the world's majority female population, though obviously it should be beefed up with info from all those external links, including by google.translating docs from Croatian. This link shows it's been active since at least 2000. CarolMooreDC 13:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A lot of false hits there. Can you offer any that would actually provide indepth coverage about the subject in reliable and independent sources in accordance with WP:ORG? It may be important and/or known by some individuals and vital to women, but notability according to Wikipedia guidelines is a different standard than "I like it, it's interesting, it exists, and it's important to women". I would like nothing more than to find reliable and independent sources to support notability, but the sources simply aren't there. Cindy(talk to me) 13:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is an extremely negative article from Nacional (weekly) from the time when they were in conflict with Chief Editor Ivo Pukanić after they accused him violence in family http://www.nacional.hr/clanak/41998/sanja-sarnavka-25-mil-kuna-za-puno-intervjua-i-malo-rada . I do not believe that such a large article in an national political magazine would be devoted to a marginal group. Here are a few more sources of information for article: http://www.monitor.hr/vijesti/trazilica/ , http://www.civilnodrustvo.hr/index.php?id=133&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2432&cHash=f3b2cf32592010a041cb5dcc4f46149a , and one interesting example http://www.knjiznica.hr/pitajte-knjiznicare/pretrazivanje/pitanje.php?pitanje=42457&target=%2Fpitajte-knjiznicare%2Fpretrazivanje%2Findex.php%3Fsearch_word%3D%26polje%3Dall%26offset%3D360%26submit%3D . I believe we have enough arguments to keep article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books google searching B.a.B.e. + Croatia has a lot of hits also, and many look like mentions with some content. Sometimes it takes 14 refs with one sentence each to build an article. Calling for AfD only 4 days after creation before people have had a chance to weigh in with critiques and decide if it's worth working on, is rather extreme. Though it does bring attention to the article and encourage the originator to do more work, as I'm sure User:MirkoW18 will do. CarolMooreDC 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment The Nacional article provides little about the organization, but focuses primarily on personal conflict or alleged corruption of the head of the organization. Interesting that the article specifically says that information about the organization "and especially their real work actually are completely unknown to the wider public", as well as states that the organization is so secretive that "the average citizen can not find even the most basic information about the association". There's also speculation in the article about what the organization "may possibly do", but no one knows for sure. The article goes on to say that the organization is "totally invisible". The Monitor article redirects to the mainpage of their website and a search came up empty. The civilnodrustvo article is about cutbacks in the government to which a spokesperson vocally opposed. And the knjiznica website provides nothing about the organization. We don't need arguments to keep the article. In order to meet the notability criteria, we need significant coverage (about the organization) in reliable sources that are independent of the organization. Nothing shows that this threshold for notability has been met. Cindy(talk to me) 16:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how all these sources can be considered trivial or incidental coverage (national and regional media, universities that think this NGO in worthy of regular contact and consultation). Here is another source that talks only about organization and not on its activities or... http://195.29.186.154/RegistarUdruga/faces/WEB-INF/pages/searchResult.jsp . In Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) write "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." and we have that soursec with different information about NGO. There also write "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." and we have that with National but all other media to. So we shoul Keep this article. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That source requires registration to access or view any content. see WP:ELNO. Cindy(talk to me) 07:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it can be anti-motivational to work on an article up for deletion, a few times in the past I and others often have saved an article by improving it, including according to recommendations. I'd advise you to add the information and source it, with the best sources first, and the article should survive. (Plus it's easier to challenge AfD if you DO do so.) Too busy myself this week. CarolMooreDC 23:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you insist that we completely ignore page of Ministry of Administration just because you need to enter password there still standing "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." and "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.". But advice that links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation. is listed because they are of limited use to most readers.. Since in this case you do not have to made user account and access to information is completely free access is not limited. With all this Wikipedia:External links is not applicable for inline citations This guideline concerns external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. and Some acceptable links include those that contain further research....Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a long article at highbeam, from a Women's publication that the Gale Group has licensed. While organizational registrations may be problematic under ELNO, citations such as through highbeam are fine. User:MirkoS18, if you aren't registered there, I can email you the article. CarolMooreDC 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notable. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.