Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of Hamas

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 already merged by User:Awewe. Secret ^account 04:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Hamas

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

An article based on a spin-off from a cheap shot from a blog. Soman (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. —Rutebega (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The allegations are getting a bit of flash-in-the-pan coverage, but we have no actual evidence that the group exists or ever has existed, since Breitbart isn't a reliable source, so we can't really have an article on it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mention in reliable sources only to refute the blogger's allegation. Not a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the organization appears to have receive multiple passing mentions in reliable sources. However, the published content of those reliable sources does not have the group as the primary subject of the content, and it is my opinion that the coverage of the organization found does not add up to be considered significant coverage of the organization. Significant coverage maybe created by a reliable source in the future, but presently it does not exist to indicate that the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, after all, difficult for reliable sources to devote significant coverage to an organization that appears not to exist. Fringe sources can have a field day, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link I found of the group was this one:

*George Ajjan (3 March 2007). "3.3.07". blog. Ajjan Associates, LLC. Retrieved February 17, 2013.

~~--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

This was about something about the American Iranian Council; disregard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Breitbart.com#Controversies. The scandal is certainly notable, as many news agencies picked it up, but not enough as its own article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Breitbart.com#Controversies, where a section on the subject already exists, per Inks.LWC. Per nom. & others, not notable enough to warrant a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2013 (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.