Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 03:44, 13 February 2022

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 userfy to User:Vietminh/List of campaigns against female genital mutilation. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 17:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation

Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Withdrawn per below Vietminh (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Non-notable organisation: This page was created after User:Cherylbarksdale tried to enter self promoting content onto the Female Genital Mutilation page. The user was attempting to promote this organization: http://cagem.org/default.aspx for which the article is named. Upon googling "cagem" I could only find the organization's website, a yahoo groups page, and a facebook page. Only one of the 10 sources used to create the article makes any mention of the organization (source #8). On this source, under "additional resources" there is a link to an eventbrite.com page made by the organization itself. I believe the article thus fails WP:GNG. Additionally, I have conducted a thorough search for reliable sources on this subject and could find no mention of either "cagem" or any "Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation" in the sense that the article portrays. There are many organizations which have the goal of eradicating Female Genital Mutilation, but these organizations do not coordinate together in the way the title or content of this article suggests. Vietminh (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything self promoting on this page. Perhaps you should try adding "citation needed" just as several articles on wiki have instead of trying to delete the entire article which I feel has valuable infomation. The fact that you didn't find anything does not mean it does not exist especially when dealing with issues in third world countries who don't have a lot of web pressence. Are you sure these organizations do not coordinate together on ground? When you say you did a "thorough" search are you just "browsing" the web or did you go to Africa to investigate? I find it amazing that you think "googling" is thorough research. Do you know how many articles, books, and sources in Africa cannot be found on google but can be verified by other means such as trips to libraries in Africa which I doubt you have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.123.168.188 (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

— 74.123.168.188 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

• Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep this article. I created this article in good faith after my trip to several countries in West Africa. I was very neutral and tried to list as many campaigns against-FGM as I could find and will continue to try to improve this article. I am asking all experts in the field to do the same and save this article from the Vandal who is trying to delete it. The user:Vietminh who nominated this article for deletion has used multiple IP addresses in the past to vandalize wiki, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Vietminh&diff=prev&oldid=448186041
• As per wikipedia's article for rescue squadron "Sometimes Misplaced Pages articles about notable topics exist in poor form, badly written, unsourced — but should they be automatically removed from the encyclopedia at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that simply need improvement." This article has passed the test for "topic notability". It is a new article and should be kept to allow others to contribute and improve it. Cherylbarksdale (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• The nominator's history is completely irrelevant to the legitimacy of this nomination, and merely constitutes a personal attack. I would strongly advise you to strike it out. I would also caution against referring to him as a "vandal"; please reserve such terms for those actively trying to harm the encyclopaedia. Jakew (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have stuck it out. I was only drawing attention to the credibility of the submitter because I felt I was personally attacked in the AFD submission which said I submitted "self promoting" info which is not true. That has now been struck out and i believe we will be able to resolve this matter by improving the article rather than deleting it.
• Keep this article. It was very informative for me when writing my paper and I find the sources to be credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.105.51 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

— 69.114.105.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

• I believe that there is an attempt to influence consensus on this page through either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, I have referred this matter for investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cherylbarksdale. Vietminh (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Meatpuppetry, On the investigation page (link above), the User stated that they did recruit people to comment on this AfD in response to my nomination, the User did not know this was against policy. I asked the User to formally acknowledge the violation of policy and to inform the people they contacted to cease their actions. The User did not do either of these things. Suspected meatpuppets are tagged with SPA per SPI case outcome. Vietminh (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Do not delete this article. I'm a student and got relevant information from this article. I see no reason why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.105.46.41 (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

— 198.105.46.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp (UTC).

• Delete - None of the references in the article are third-party reliable sources that establish any sort of notability for the article's subject. Searching online did not yield any either. Fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 15:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Cherylbarksdale's remarks. Ou tis (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. I can't see any evidence of the coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that's needed to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Jakew (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Vietminh's proposal RA0808 _contribs 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Withdrawing I am withdrawing the nomination per WP:WITHDRAWN. In it's current form the article fails guidelines, but a List of campaigns against female genital mutilation would be notable, there are several high profile campaigns in and of themselves which stem from several notable organizations. I will re-work the article in this format for re-consideration. Given the amount of comments that have been added I won't close the discussion myself, but further evaluation should be made based on the revised content. Vietminh (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I do think that the article as it currently exists is not notable enough to stand on its own, but I do think that a List of... article might be more appropriate and would very likely be notable enough. However, it appears the consensus is to delete this version of the article, but because the "new" article would essentially cover a broader topic, perhaps it might be better to temporarily userfy this article until then? - SudoGhost 01:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not delete this article, sources are on their way as we speak. I think that since it is an international campaign we can restructure it to include all the campaigns while giving the organizations that were inspired by this original campaign credit. Since last week, i have been incontact with the international campaign and asked them to send me all the campaigns against FGM they have in their database. I expect to receive them by tomorrow. But please note that a lot of them are in small communities and may not have web presence but may have been featured in local news. I will put in the sources and please feel free to edit it as you wish if you think it does not read properly.Cherylbarksdale (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you SudoGhost, we should probably wait for some more feedback to move forward with the userfication, I have notified the other contributors to this page. Vietminh (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Crikey, this is a confusing page to read!

I'm not opposed to a List of campaigns against female genital mutilation article at all; the general concept of a campaign against "female genital mutilation" is indeed notable. It's the specific (and note the capitalisation implying usage as a proper noun) "Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation" that seems to fail notability criteria. If anything looks salvageable, then I say go ahead and userfy. If not, delete the present article and write a new one. Jakew (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Kk, I will userfy immediately given the consensus here. Sorry about the poor shape of the article hahaha, I was about to begin working on it last when I walked downstairs and spilled a giant bowl of microwaved berries all over my hallway, it looked like crime scene. Vietminh (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The userfied article is located here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Vietminh/List_of_campaigns_against_female_genital_mutilation. Many thanks to all involved for offering their opinion on this matter. Vietminh (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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.