Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestine Solidarity Campaign

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.

Palestine Solidarity Campaign

The result was Keep per withdrawn by poster. WP:TNT wasn't necessary. (non-admin closure) Bob drobbs (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Possibly hopelessly WP:PROMO. Maybe WP:TNT? If you remove all of the unreliable sources it's not clear it meets WP:GNG. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bob drobbs (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep- I think it passes the notability requirements. It is poorly written (overly promotional, many POV issues), but that's not a reason to delete. It should just be fixed. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Inf-in MD: I was originally looking at WP:TNT -- Is so much of the article promo and so many of the sources biased/unreliable that the article should be blown up and started again from scratch? But looking at WP:ATD, maybe a reasonable approach would be reduce to stub by removing all, or almost all, of the info that isn't from reliable secondary sources. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, stubbing it may be the way to go. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- deleting this article about a notable organisation would not be a good look, in light of WPs well-known zionist leanings. MrDemeanour (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. nableezy - 21:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that perhaps 2/3 of this page is WP:PROMO referencing their site, or other direct supporters, or from other unreliable sources. That's why I pondered if WP:TNT is the fix. Would you support a major truncation of this page, deleting almost everything that comes from non-reliable or primary sources? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am in general in favor of removing material not cited to reliable sources. However material cited to the organization itself is usable per WP:ABOUTSELF. That is besides the point here though, and if you no longer favor deletion you should withdraw the nomination. nableezy - 21:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear this actually meets notability requirements. Relevant guideline here would be WP:NORG as it's an organisation. Most aren't even GNG sources, but ignoring those there's a handful of at-a-glance acceptable sources, except when you look closer these don't seem to meet NORG (e.g. [1] isn't about the organisation, it's about an individual, [2] isn't substantial coverage, even [3] isn't really useable). I haven't checked every single source, but of those I did check only FN7 ([4]) was NORG-acceptable. If there are "Zionist organisations" that don't meet NORG they should be nominated for deletion too; see WP:OSE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known campaign group, regularly in the national news. Number 5 7 09:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of which are mere mentions and don't have substantial coverage about the organisation...? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in a bad state but WP:BEFORE applies. On a quick search, I found significant coverage in reliable sources, including:
- PSC organises largest ever palestine UK solidarity march in guardian
- PSC investigates british universities' links to arms companies in middle east eye
- BLM allies with PSC in the week
- The BDS Movement Promotes Delegitimization of the State of Israel and lots more on JSTOR
- What is the significance of the R (Palestine Solidarity Campaign Ltd & Anor) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 2020 UKSC 16 case for the trustees’ fiduciary duty of investment and “ethical” investment opportunities? on OUP
- Journal article about Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign
- There's also a surprising amount of news articles about local UK groups. Mujinga (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2021 (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.