Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans for Peace and Tolerance

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 to delete. There is no consensus as to the notability of the organization in the discussion below. The feasibility and appropriateness of a merge/redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Peace and Tolerance

edit
Americans for Peace and Tolerance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing to indicate why the subject is notable, and I cannot find anything to suggest that it meets any criteria for inclusion, specifically WP:ORG. All mentions I can see appear to be incidental and many are merely Jacbob's opinion pieces. wjematherbigissue 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has clearly been the subject of significant coverage in multiple articles in verifiable, reliable, independent secondary sources (both within and outside the U.S.). As a sidenote, this is a bad faith nomination. The nom, with whom I cannot recall ever having had contact before, had just completed a testy exchange with me on a completely unrelated subject. Hours later, he made this nomination -- of an article I had just created.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A[n] organization ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources....
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources [which we have here] should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability....
Evidence of attention by international [which we have in this case] or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.
--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". This is all we have here. wjematherbigissue 16:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there was any attention paid to the organization, you might have something here. There hasn't been. The group is mentioned solely in the context of "Soandso, deputy vice panjamon of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, says ..."  RGTraynor  19:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG clarifies what is considered "trivial" or "incidental" for these purposes.
"Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." What that means is that if there is a quote to the effect that "Joe, the President of X Corp, happened to be walking down the street when the firefight broke out, and says the terrorist shot first" -- well then, that would not count towards notability of X Corp. Here, that is not the case. Every instance where there is a quote, the person quoted is being quoted in their position as, and speaking for, APT.
Furthermore, WP:ORG goes on to clarify what is meant by trivial or incidental mentions: "Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest." What we have here is much more than that -- we have multiple independent articles, with international coverage, of APT's people speaking about, typically, a main or the main issue of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So then include those views in the articles related to the topic of the comments, you still dont have a single source that talks about the organization itself. nableezy - 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have extensive coverage throughout by RSs both within and outside the US of issues that are the main focus of the article, by an organization whose role is to comment on issues. Including an RS printing an op ed. That's clearly more than what is meant by trivial and incidental (far more than mention of someone being hired by the company, or it closing an office, and the other examples in wp:org). As DGG says below, this sort of coverage is standard for what we rely on for organizations of this type.
Put another way, when a newspaper covers a company, integral to its coverage is the company's product. Here, this company is in the business of taking positions on issues, and the article is replete with RS refs covering instances of the company's officers/directors/employee doing just that.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And these quotes are specifically covered by WP:ORG, which explicitly states "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." (emphasis mine) That a number of users are ignorant of the provisions of WP:ORG I don't deny, but their lack of understanding of the relevant guideline doesn't invalidate that guideline.  RGTraynor  11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@RGT: Already addressed above.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Going through the history" of an editor and AFD'ing things doesn't sound appropriate to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, as with some similar comments below, I believe the point that is missed is that when Jacobs is referred to in the refs (including quotes, his Boston Globe op-ed article, etc), it is as the President or a founder or board member of APT. The comments are all therefore clearly attributable to him in his APT role.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluation of sources by Nableezy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There are currently 13 sources cited. That may seem like a lot, but none of these sources are independent secondary sources that make anything more than a passing mention of the organization. The references are as follows:

  • 1: This is the "About Us" page from the organizations website. This is the most heavily cited source in the article, being used nine times. This source does not demonstrate anything regarding "substantial coverage" in "reliable, independent secondary sources"
  • 2: This source mentions the organization one time: Much of the criticism and suspicion of mosque leaders has come from the Jewish community, although the new organization criticizing the mosque, called Americans for Peace and Tolerance, is led by an Episcopal layman, a Muslim scholar, and a Jewish activist. This source does not provide "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 3: An editorial by the president of the organization which does not even mention the organization except to say that the editorial is by the president of the organization.
  • 4: A single mention of the organization again: The primary critic of the mosque has been Charles Jacobs, a longtime Jewish activist in Boston who previously founded the American Anti-Slavery Group, which works to oppose slavery in Sudan and elsewhere, and The David Project, an Israel advocacy organization. He has founded an organization called Americans for Peace and Tolerance with two longtime allies, Boston College political science professor Dennis B. Hale and Virginia-based Islamic scholar Ahmed S. Mansour. The group plans to stage a protest at the opening today. There is no "substantial coverage" of the organization in this source.
  • 5 (also available in Lexis-Nexis): A single mention of the organization: To that point, Charles Jacobs, a longtime community activist and head of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said depicting Boston as a bubble was not wholly inaccurate. "It's the epicenter of liberalism in America, maybe even the epicenter of Jewish liberalism," Jacobs said. Again, no "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 6: A single mention of the organization: It is all about what Dr. Charles Jacobs of Americans for Peace and Tolerance called Islamophobiaphobia. Again, no "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 7: I don't have access to the full text of this article, but the abstract does contain one line that mentions the organization: The Islamic Society of Boston's Roxbury mosque recently held its grand opening amid protests from activists, including Charles Jacobs, president of Americans for Peace & Tolerance. There may be more here so I cannot say for sure that this source does not provide substantial coverage.
  • 8: A single mention of the organization: Christian Renewal Church, 556 Cabot St., Beverly, will host "Pursuing Peace in a post 9/11 World" on Nov. 15, featuring speaker Dr. Richard Booker, who writes on biblical scriptures and about threats from radical Islam. Also featured will be Ilya Feoktistov, research director for Americans for Peace and Tolerance. The event is free, but an offering will be taken for Booker. No "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 9: Apparently relying on a snippet from a google search, there is a mention of the organization: Ilya Feoktistov, research director for Americans for Peace and Tolerance. This is not "substantial coverage".
  • 10: A single mention of the organization: Among the group of Mehanna's supporters was at least one dissenter, Ilya Feoktistov, of the group Americans for Peace and Tolerance, who said, "Boston has one of the oldest, moderate, educated Muslim communities in America, but unfortunately in recent years there's been an influx in radical ideology that's having a terrible effect on Boston Muslims." Again, no "substantial coverage of the organization.
  • 11: A single mention of the organization: "We want [aldermen] Steve Linsky and Ted Hess-Mahan to apologize, and to go for sensitivity training or resign," Charles Jacobs, president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said in an e-mail to the Globe afterwards. "If they do not apologize, we will consider forming a movement to recall them." No "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 12: A single mention of the organization: According press accounts and the research Jacobs conducts as head of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, a group devoted to exposing Islamic extremism, before receiving his lawyers Naji told his US interrogators he pledged to fight in Lashkar-e-Taibe’s jihad against India and was given mine-laying training in the group’s camps. No "substantial coverage" of the organization.
  • 13: A single mention of the organization: President of Americans for Peace and Tolerance Charles Jacobs said he opposes the idea.

In total, there are 0 (possibly one, though I doubt it) independent secondary reliable sources that provide any type of substantial coverage of the organization. The entirety of the coverage in all of the independent secondary sources is that Charles Jacobs is the president, the organization is "a group devoted to exposing Islamic extremism", and it was founded by Jacobs with Dennis Hale and Ahmed Mansour. There is no substantial coverage of the organization in any of the references I have been able to check, save the "About Us" page at the organization's website. nableezy - 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sourcing is well beyond adequate, and organization definitely seems notable in the Boston area per local and international press coverage. I'm also finding it difficult to assume good faith after seeing the earlier dispute between the nom and the author about a different AFD. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Superficially, this is a well sourced article, but if you actually read the sources provided, not a single one is about this organization, and only half of them even mention it by name; as such, it fails WP:V and WP:COATRACK. That being said, I see nothing wrong with reviewing another editor's work and AfDing articles that fail under relevant policies; I've done so myself. Rather than sling mud, Epeefleche's energies are better served finding valid sources which discuss the subject in significant detail; so far, the article doesn't even discuss Jacobs in such detail, as mere quotes don't qualify as being about the subject.  RGTraynor  05:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which six or seven refs are you saying do not "even mention it by name"?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just now gone through all the references again. Contrary to RGT's above assertion, rather than finding that "only half of them even mention it by name," I found that every single reference without exception mentions it by name.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the thirteen references are third-party sources about the organization, not just mentioning it? nableezy - 05:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to be entirely about the organisation: WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (my emboldening). I think several of the cited sources clearly go beyond "trivial mention". Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For reasons stated by other keepers above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has a significant amount of notability for a number of issues and incidents regarding radical islam. This is in the wake of deleting Lloyd R. Woodson which was another possible jihad base attacker which was deleted because it was "just another non-notable news story??" despite it was well sourced WP:ORG states An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. So why delete this?? this appears to be a bad faith nomination Bachcell (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you list all of the "reliable, independent secondary sources" that provide "significant coverage" of this organization? nableezy - 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no logical reason for deletion apart from a personal vendetta. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I see nominator has edited the article after making this nomination. Contributors should only nominate articles for deletion when they believe there is zero chance of fixing the article. In my experience nominators who subsequently edit an article while it is still under under discussion, have done so either (1) the nominator is very inexperienced, and doesn't understand our deletion policies; or (2) the nomination is a bad faith nomination, and the nominators real motivation is to get their way, and see the article deleted -- even if it could be improved. Geo Swan (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you state a policy based reason for keeping rather then an unfounded claim against a minor edit made to the article.Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually quite a major edit as it fixed two issues in the prior version, which looked very much like a coatrack for the Roxbury Crossings mosque controversy and the statement about Jacobs' tape was completely out of context. wjematherbigissue 21:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us which sources cover the organization and not Jacobs. 08:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I lean towards delete since there isn't enough independent coverage to make more than a stub saying: "Americans for Peace and Tolerance is a group devoted to exposing Islamic extremism. People involved say: stuff". Press releases would add a little more body but that doesn't dictate notability. There are plenty of sources not related to Jacobs[1] but they are all equal about: "So and so w/ group says blah blah blah". Most of it is from Boston (boooo...) media, but there is also international coverage meaning that WP:ORG is not far off. It could meet the loosest of definitions for both GNG and ORG. Not sure if it is good enough coverage yet. I suspect it will be but we don't keep articles based on that. The group should certainly be mentioned at Dennis Hale and Charles Jacobs. It might be good to have a separate article since it will be duplicate info but that might need to wait until the organization gets a little more coverage. Igonoring politics, an inclusionist would certainly say yes while a opposite would say no way. I would definetley say keep if I missed a couple paragraph write up in the sources or if one shows up.Cptnono (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clicking the Google news link at the top of the AFD, I see 15 results. News Organizations believe this organization notable enough to quote from. The first news find has their name in the title even. http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1711695/americans_for_peace_and_tolerance_advise_governor_patrick_and_mayor/ The second news link has one spokesperson from the group quoted on an issue related to a radical Muslim. Dream Focus 13:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an article about a non-profit organization that has been in the news. Clearly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wow, if there were ever a case where I implore a closing admin to rule for policy over nose-counting, this is one. Most of the Keep proponents claim this group is "notable." Notability hinges on WP:N, which states:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

Going on to WP:ORG, the specific guideline governing organizations, there is this quote:

Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story.

Not a single source discusses this group at all, and no Keep proponent has addressed this. I'm having a hard time understanding claims that this group is "notable" when the article fails to meet the very definitions of "notable" given in WP:N and WP:ORG. For those voting Keep solely on the premise that this is a revenge nomination of some kind (some AGF might be useful here), perhaps we can solve that issue, because if the AfD closes without a result of Delete, I'm going to renominate it myself fifteen minutes later; may we presume I lack any animus against the article's creator?  RGTraynor  18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, given Rjanag's comment, I agree that a merge/redirect to the notable Charles Jacobs (political activist) or Dennis Hale is appropriate. Cf. Center for Class Action Fairness, which does have significant news coverage of its activities meeting WP:ORG (esp. after the March 2010 issue of ABA Journal comes out), but is as yet only a redirect. THF (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect Most of the references I looked at appear to be not primarily (or at all) about the organization, just passing mentions of it—i.e., stuff like "...Charles Jacobs, president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance, said...". Unfortunately I do think much of this is puff, and the creator of the article has puffed articles similarly in the past (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (5th nomination)). Keeping my vote "weak" because I haven't read the article carefully and haven't had a chance to really consider it own its own merits, but I think ref puffery is generally a bad sign. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is a coatrack because the organization is a coatrack. I can find nothing the organization has done that is not tied to name of one of the principals. Clearly the principals are notable but the organization appears to be primarily a platform to elevate, project and validate individual speech. If all sentences that mention one of the principals are removed a stub is left which I'd vote to keep but as it is, I cannot support it. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: It really hinges on how we interpret "significant coverage" for organizations like this. There are numerous reliable sources that refer to it, and while many of them do so only in passing, several of them highlight the fact that the founders are from diverse religious background. I haven't seen a source that is an in-depth expose of the organization, but this seems to be the norm with many articles about political activist groups (see Jews for Justice for Palestinians or Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, for comparison. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail." Which of these sources discuss this organization at all? What religious backgrounds the founders have is not at all about the organization. It isn't so much that you haven't seen a source that's an in-depth expose of the organization; we've yet to see an independent source discuss the organization in any detail whatsoever.  RGTraynor  22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are overstating your case. A source that writes "the new organization criticizing the mosque, called Americans for Peace and Tolerance, is led by an Episcopal layman, a Muslim scholar, and a Jewish activist." - is addressing the subject directly, and in some detail. To say this source does not discuss this organization at all, as you are saying, is simply wrong. Ditto for a source which writes " founded an organization called Americans for Peace and Tolerance with two longtime allies, Boston College political science professor Dennis B. Hale and Virginia-based Islamic scholar Ahmed S. Mansour. The group plans to stage a protest at the opening today." - it addresses the subject directly, providing deatils about its founders and its planned actions. Now, this level of detail may not be extensive, and is certainly paltry in comparison with the amount of coverage that an activist group like A.N.S.W.E.R. gets, but it is certainly on par with the level of coverage that similar, lesser known groups get. I've provided a couple of examples above, but there are of course others. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain further? Not a single source, except the "About Us" page at their website, does more than mention the organization a single time. How is that "sufficiently specific"? nableezy - 02:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep -- Seems to be reasonably prominent in Boston politics with respect to the issues it chooses to pursue. Not really sure that a "profile" type article, focusing on the organization as an organization, is critically necessary if members of the organization, identified as such, appear in prominent media coverage of relevant political controversies etc... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't in the least degree "prominent" in Boston politics; the only issue upon which these folks were particularly visible was in trying to stop the Roxbury mosque from being built, a task at which they failed.  RGTraynor  07:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I could live with a redirect and merge to Jacobs. While what consitutes "significant coverage" is rightly subject to consensus, the organziation clearly exists and the only debate is over independent notability. The only proper outcomes are Keep or Merge, not Delete. It's expected that somebody will read about the organization in the newspaper and will look it up on WP; a redirect will preserve that functionality. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs clean-up including some pov-ish bits but that is not a reason for deletion. If we are to believe only the sources readily visible online are the sum total of available sources there would be justifiable cause for concern - we know that is almost never the case so encouraging those interested in doing the work to find more and better sourcing seems appropriate and reasonable. -- Banjeboi 03:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - if there's anything worth merging, merge, and then redirect on the off chance that someone looks at WP for information about the group. But with no significant coverage of the group, there's nothing we can use to write a stand-alone article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Charles Jacobs (political activist). All mentions in secondary sources are trivial. Abductive (reasoning) 08:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article fails WP:SOAP. The coverage assoicated with this organisation is not balanced in anyway, and looks like self-promotion to me. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep organisation is clearly notable: Jacobs and others are quoted in the press as representatives of APT, not merely as individuals who happen to belong to that organisation. As far as I can see, the article seems a fair representation of coverage in reliable sources: if APT's activities or statements include completely uncontroversial stuff that doesn't get reported because it's uncontroversial (which might or might not be the case - I don't know) there's not much we can do about that other than briefly quoting the organisation's stated aims and including a link to its website, which has been done. This meets notability and verifiability standards. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 08:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep very well referenced article, which meets all wikipedia guidelines. Boston Globe and Jerusalem Post sources. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:02, 11 February 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Americans_for_Peace_and_Tolerance&oldid=1254997387"