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. The organization is international and according to WP:ORG is notable if its activities can be verified by third party reliable sources. The latter condition is at least partially satisfied. Ruslik_Zero 14:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Democracy Forum[edit]

African Democracy Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Few ghits and fewer Gnews Hits, and nothing supporting notability that I can find on cursory search. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps part of the reason this article was written was because it is not widely known about. It seems to me, if you are judging its importance by google searches, that the problem is NOT that the organization is insignificant, but that it does not get the recognition it deserves for the work that it does. Perhaps that is part of the point of the entry in the first place. Not to mention, if you actually look at the hits that come up on google, you can see the prestige the organization does have and the wide scope of its work. As with some many things in Africa, the good news and the positive steps are never taken. Let's not take that to mean that they are insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.79.17 (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be original research. Wikipedia has the notability guidelines for inclusion. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've gotten so used to writing opinion pieces to the exclusion of

science that encyclopedic writing is very difficult. Even in discussion, it is hard to avoid saying something about public interest or "needs to be more widely known". Even covering drug company technology, this gets mixed up with political action targeted at the FDA etc. So, I would just like to mention that the 208.58.79.17 comments are appreciated but largely not a concern. A bigger concern is avoiding moralizing and advertising. Most news outlets and journals have better peer review and accountability. Wiki is open access and needs to have claims traceable to reviewed reputable sources. Politically hot topics often suffer from extreme views from advocacy groups which I personally would find notable even if their opinions are not "credible."

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Please show how 208.58's suggestions sponsor original research. Organizations that exist to increase awareness of issues are by definition less well known. The organizations and the issues are neither more relevant nor less because of the lack of public knowledge on the subject. For that matter, perhaps you could show how searches of web pages limit inclusion in WP. Anarchangel (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go: but that it does not get the recognition it deserves for the work that it does. Perhaps that is part of the point of the entry in the first place. Doesn't get recognition, so the article is to recognize it. Sounds like original research if no one else has mentioned it in the news. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One, you have notability and original research scrambled, and two, you have failed to show evidence of either. Anarchangel (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A good article but needs continued work `- Ret.Prof (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is mentioned in several news articles (from different countries) and a few books. One source says it is a network of 450 local orgs. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2009 (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.