Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICG report on the 2011 Bahrain revolt

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. Discussion about merging can continue outside of AFD on the appropriate talk pages. --MuZemike 02:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICG report on the 2011 Bahrain revolt[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence provided for the notability of this report, independently of the uprising it chronicles. This report may be used as a source for the 2011 Bahraini uprising article, but there's nothing that warrants an article dedicated to the report itself. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic is notable. Reliable sources: Election Guide Digest: Popular Protests in North Africa and the Middle East (III): The Bahrain Revolt, ISN: Popular Protests in North Africa and The Middle East (III): The Bahrain Revolt, UNHCR: Popular Protests in North Africa and the Middle East (III): The Bahrain Revolt, HSRP: Popular Protests in North Africa and the Middle East (III): The Bahrain Revolt, Saudi Wave: Crisis Group: popular protests in North Africa and the Middle East.

~~Delete~~ See updated comment a few lines down. The article topic is the report, not the subject of the report. Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability. Looks like a self-presentation of the report rather than an article about the report. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is about the report itself. You can look at the reliable sources above to check for notability, if found notable enough the article can be edited to include them to show notability. Bahraini Activist (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy, and I suggest using this as a source for an article on the 2011 Bahrain uprising rather than making this source itself the subject of an article There is a trio of articles with the same story. The subject of the reports is notable, but there is little or no indication of wp:notability for the report. Sources given in comments are generally the author of the report itself, or just condensations of or listings of the report. The content of the article is a presentation of the assertions of the report rather than being about the report. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ICG, as nearly all think-tanks and thousands of other organisations in the world, regularly publish country reports . IMHO, it makes very little sense to include and describe all of them on Wikipedia. I see no justification that each and every report on every country in the world ever published by ICG and similar organisations should have each a separate article on Wikipedia, despite their perhaps strong emotional value for certain parties to the events. Maybe a summary article listing selected international reports by country would not be bad - but certainly not articles on individual reports (and with such a confusing name). kashmiri (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the six NGO Bahrain 2011 human rights reports, all of which are under AfD, into a single article something like 2011 human rights reports on Bahrain. A link to the governmental commission and its report should go in the article. Removing the redundant background and see also sections of the individual articles will reduce the overall length of the combined article. The six AfD links are:
1. local,
2. HRWF,
3. Amnesty,
4. ICG,
5. HRW,
6. Physicians
Boud (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Merge as a good compensatory idea. I think there are 2 more ICG reports and 2 more HRWF reports as well, but I stopped working on that since this issue was raised. There is also one more local report by Al Wefaq to be published. Also there is the Irish Fact Finding Delegation On Bahrain, which according to these articles [1], [2], [3], [4] should have reached a conclusion, but I couldn't find it anywhere. If it's not too much, I asked you (Boud) to take a look at that topic as well as give your opinion about it. Bahraini Activist (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2012 (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.