Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network

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. Sandstein 07:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network

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

An IP address contested this deletion on my talk page, so I de-PRODed as a courtesy and am bringing it here. My reasoning in the PROD still stands: the sourcing is either connected or promotional, making it not count towards notability per WP:SPIP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Gnews hits it does have is in citations of the orgs CEO, which certainly doesn't count towards notability for the organization itself, since it is not significant coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Searching journals and different publications, I found this organization's staff published in places like the Arab Studies Quarterly [1] and The Hill (newspaper)[2], cited in a report prepared for the United States Department of Defense on Israeli–Palestinian_conflict [3] and in a number of academic journals: Scandinavian Journal of Management[4], International Journal on Human Rights[5], Journal of Peace Research[6], The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs[7], and I see they've done an event with the Foundation for Middle East Peace [8] as well (I am US-based so familiar with this organization). --Hanthalawi (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (before I decide). Give these folks credit for doing something with nothing. The article is breathy; I volunteer to fix that if it's a keep. They (yes the boss) are getting quoted in the world press, for example al-Jazeera[9]. And the ECFR too[10]. Rhadow (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ my searches discovered no WP:SIGCOV. There some listings, like this: [11] NGO Monitor report, which lists a 2017 budget of $187,000. Similar ProPublica listing (used as source) here [12] comes in a few dollars less. That's pretty small potatoes. Other sources on the page are either mere mentions or mere listings, or are not WP:RS (i.e. Electronic Intifada, an interesting source because I was about to suggest that it may merely be WP:TOOSOON, but Electronic Intifada article dates to 2010. It looks like it was one of those ideas that never really amounted to much.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, rechecking myself I just ran another search on "Al-Shabaka" without the rest ot this title. Constantly cited by Aljazeera, Ma'an News Agency, Democracy Now!, & politically similar media. It still needs some WP:SIGCOV, but I'm out of time for now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article is no longer breathless praise. Don't put Aljazeera in the same bucket as Electronic Intifada and Ma'an News Agency. It makes me happy that they survive without a well-paid executive director. Don't let the small budget fool you. Part of this discussion is a matter of style: the Al Shabaka speakers choose to be quoted individually, with a mention that they represent Al-Shabaka in some way. This is different from releases from other think tanks, where the institution gets the attribution, and a secondary mention of the author. Rhadow (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, which would make it a primary source interview, which means it doesn't count towards WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree. Al Shabaka needs an organizational profile published in a reliable source to establish GNG. There doesn't seem to be one. An interested editor would keep a copy of this article and republish it when he or she finds one. Rhadow (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing more searching, Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV, failure to meet WP:CORPDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment--To determine whether the covg. is significant in nature.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only instances I can find of it being used in a WP:RS are when someone representing them is quoted. Their official website is used as a source multiple times and it clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. - Galatz ^Talk 13:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's relatively difficult to find the usual sort of sourcing for organizations like this, and w can realistically give some weight to the extent of its presence inits professional sphere. I accept Rhadow's evaluation of this. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 8 October 2017 (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.