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. While not ignoring any vote, there is a difference between a passing mention and significant covers, with that being a deciding factor. Dennis - 2¢ 21:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Palestine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Article on a non-noteworthy student group, thereby not meeting WP standard on notability. The article gives the group the false appearance of being an established political organisation, which it is not. Undue weight is given to its hardly-newsworthy student activism. Additionally, the multiple issues on such an article of questionable significance gives cause for the article to be SALTED or just plain junked. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Content issues are not AfD delete reasons. What issues are there that pertain to an AfD? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've clarified my position above.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I.am.a.qwerty, since you are the AfD nominator, you don't get a separate vote to delete. As the proposer, your position is already assumed to be for the deletion. You should just put those delete reasons under the find sources tag, deleting the delete word. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looking at the last AFD, it seems the delete votes and arguments were simply ignored as the reason for admin's keep was "no concensus" although the vote for keep was outnumbered 3 to 1. I don't see how this article could possibly meet WP standards or why it took so long for a second AFD tag. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no doubt that the organization exists, and has existed for some considerable time. It has had enough coverage in neutral mainstream sources to indicate it is notable enough for an article. For example, here is a recent Guardian article [1], here it is mentioned in national media in Australia [2], and here in regional media in Australia [3]. It has also been mentioned in mainstream sources in ways that some might claim to be institutionally-biased (like [4]), as well as on activists' sites, also in masses of openly pro-Israel media (this last indicating this organization's importance is not just self-perceived importance). Anything else is just a content issue, not a reason to delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the group is a small student society, not an established organisation of any kind. Hence, the notibility issue... Additionally, the articles you've listed make but passing references to the group within the context of student political protests. That kind of coverage might work to cite their activities but not their notibility. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a long-established organization - it existed in 2009 when the last AfD happened, and it still exists. It is not a "small student society" - it exists as branches in numerous campuses, as the news sources often indicate. I don't know if there is an easy way to get a complete list, but after you ref tagged the active campuses section of the article, I had a look at [5]. Alas, to get the info (where it exists) you have to laboriously go through each university, then each campus, then each list of non-sporting clubs (and often there is no list given, for example, [6]). However, for example, for Monash University, Clayton campus, we find there is a Students for Palestine club [7]. Same for RMIT University, city campus, [8], and Macquarie University [9]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Curiosity provoked, I spent a lot of time last evening attempting to find references to make this into an article. I think well-documented articles on minor outfits are really useful. It is convenient to be able to go to Wikipedia to sort out the constantly shifting kaleidescope of activist factionalizing as it spins out an endless string of new clubs. I didn't vote delete last night because, in general, I prefer giving articles the chance to grow to deleting. On second thought, however, when it comes to small organizations and obscure assertions, Wikipedia is a way of establishing credibility. And Wikipedia needs to protect its own credibility by making sure that article topics can be established by reliable sources (even if the creator hasn't googled them up and added them to the article. In this case, I searched, and came up empty. On the other hand, it took about a minute this morning to find a source and take the notability tag off 2010 Hakkâri bus attack. (The other article I spent a long time trying to source last night was Anti-Muslim bombings in Paris, Cannes and Nice, and I'm still not sure what to do with it.) The article under discussion here is about an organization that has had little to no coverage in reliable sources. I suggest that the creator begin by finding enough solid sources to write a section about this outfit on an established page about student activism. Because at this stage, the sources are simply not out there.ShulMaven (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The group doesn't seem to be notable. Most of these sources can't support notability, some of the reliable sources are just cited to back up facts about Palestine rather than mentioning the group, and the few sources that are both reliable and about the group seem fairly newsy/routine. It's possible that this could just be redirected to Socialist Alternative, though! (not that that article doesn't need a trim...) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (I wouldn't mind if there was an appropriate redirect target but I'm not sure Socialist Alternative is it). There really isn't significant coverage of the organisation itself, enough to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. It's all minor passing mentions and "Students for Palestine also..." sort of stuff. That doesn't make for a strong encyclopaedic article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Socialist_Alternative_(Australia)#Palestine seems fine for a redirect. Although I'd want to double check the source that SA is the backing/founding group for SFP. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2014 (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.