Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JAMAA

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 delete. The discussion here evidences that JAMAA as a movement or organization is not notable, as no independent sources for such a movement or organization could be found. The particular group in Burundi named JAMAA probably is notable; and an article tightly focused on it would likely be viable. But no mention of other groups with the same name should be made absent a specific reliable and independent source noting that they exist and describing the relationship to the original. To facilitate a rewrite, I'll drop the relevant citations from the article on the talk page of this AFD. GRBerry 04:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

JAMAA

JAMAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The whole article in its current state is a confused mess, first discussing a club in US colleges, that no sources write about and then following with a paragraph about a completely different organization with the same name, and somehow manages to conjure up a link between them. There might be something to be said about the second organization, but based on the references given, there's not enough for a real article, and while starting soccer games for peace might be a noble goal, it's questionably notable at best. In any case, the article as it is now does more harm than good, since it's entirely misleading. - -- Bobet (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to a proper article with relevant sources and citations being recreated. Stifle (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This article is well sourced and discusses a notable. I don't understand what it is that you are debating with this article. The clubs that are present in U.S. schools are based on and inspired by the original organization started in Africa. Like it says in the article, these organizations are individual and don't have any particular governing body. However, all JAMAA clubs across the United States have the same mission and purpose. -- Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. In the DRV after your original article was speedied, Rhythmnation2004, you claimed that JAMAA met WP:N because its activities were national in scale. Well, if "these organizations are individual and don't have any particular governing body," then there isn't any organization whose activities are national in scale, just a few isolated clubs with the same name. Moreover, I'm not seeing any independent sources that establish the notability of these U.S. groups or their connection to the one in Burundi (which is the subject of the only sources in the article). Fails WP:V and WP:N. -- Deor (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nom and Deor. I see no evidence of this being a notable national organization, just an organization that happens to be in several schools. Metros (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps someone can find additional references. i couldnt find anything for the organisation as a whole. But if there is no overall structure, it will be obviously difficult to write an article This has also been a problem with some religious or political affiliations without any central body. Don't know how to solve it. DGG (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Final comment on this matter. What we really need to do here is step back and think "Does this article contribute to Wikipedia?". The answer would be, "Yes". With all the bureaucracy and red tape of this project, people tend to lose sight of its original purpose - to provide a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that any student can go to and find an article on any subject. Wikipedia has the reputation of providing its users with an unlimited amount of resources on even the most undiscussed topics; JAMAA is a perfect example of one of those topics. Because JAMAA is an organization with a strange name, and it appears in many schools, and is mentioned in notable publications, there will be people who come to Wikipedia in search of answers. I am a member of JAMAA. No, I am not an owner of JAMAA, a sponsor of JAMAA, and have no financial interest in it. It is simply a non-profit club at my school. And I can not tell you how many times I have had people come up to me to ask me what JAMAA meant and what our purpose was. Third-party sources discussing JAMAA are few and far between, and the ones currently cited in the article are truly the best ones; having the opportunity to combine these sources into one article is beneficial to anyone who is trying to learn about this organization. I believe that it shows ignorance to assume that "these are just organizations with the same name who don't have anything to do with eachother", when "JAMAA", particularly spelled in all caps, is a unique name in and of itself, and it's unlikely that independent JAMAA organizations would sprout up across the world without any inspiration from another. These JAMAA organizations are indeed connected, with their leaders meeting occasionally to discuss the direction of their mission. However, like the article says, it just simply doesn't have one, single governing body, like many religious or political groups, as DGG previously said. Before you all jump to delete this article, stop and ask yourself "Does this article contribute to Wikipedia?". And any of you who have a curious mind and a heart will most definitely say "Yes". Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • "Third-party sources discussing JAMAA are few and far between..." Why? Because it's not notable. Metros (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, if there is a connection, provide a source. There's absolutely no information on which JAMAA the first two sources refer to, they could be part of the "Jewish-Arab-Muslim American Association" or something else, there's no way to know by just reading the word, and you asserting otherwise isn't going to convince people as a source. - Bobet (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a movement based in Burundi, for which reliable sources have been provided. Claims to have chapters in other parts of the world should be sourced. Most discussion here so far seems to based on whether JAMAA is notable as a national US organisation, although the article (at least in its present form) makes no such claim, and doesn't have to if the movement is notable elsewhere. Let's be careful to avoid systemic bias. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Countering systemic bias doesn't mean you include organizations simply because they exist in a third world country. If an American organization did charitable work by starting soccer games between two participating groups in a conflict, and the only source was one human interest story (that is on two sites, albeit worded differently), you wouldn't argue for its inclusion. If there's something more to be said about that organization, rather than the one sentence you currently have in the article, please expand the article or at least provide sources so that someone else can do it. Thanks. - Bobet (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The point about systemic bias is not that anything should be included just because it's from a third world country. It's that it will be more difficult to find reliable sources for an organisation which exist in a country where there a very few editors of English Wikipedia, and low internet accessibilty in general, so we should be very careful about deleting just because a Google search doesn't find much. In order to research this properly it would be necessary to check the Burundian press. I haven't got the means to that, and I'm sure that it would take quite some time to find someone who has. If this was an American organization of similar notabily sources would be much easier to find because they would almost certainly be online and in English. Let's give this a bit more time to see if better sources can be found. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Please take a look at the current article. Is anything it says about the organization true, based on the given sources? The only thing you have is the founder's name. When I first saw the article, I wanted to fix it, but without enough reliable sources, I couldn't. If someone does find sources, great, he can write a new article. But actually keeping a misleading article simply because a part of it is true even when the rest is guesswork, isn't smart in my opinion. - Bobet (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete delete per nom and fact, it's not notable--English836 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Objection to English836's input as he is an employee of Google and therefore may have a bias towards subjects that do not have many Google hits. It seems that the systemic bias policy is being ignored, since this nomination is almost solely based on the fact that the subject does not have many online sources. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, by far that is the oddest objection to a deletion !vote I think I have ever encountered. A bias because he works for Google...yeah...But if you look closely at his user page, he says specifically that he works for the radio project within Google...nothing that entails the production of Google hits or search results. So I can not see how any bias would exist. Metros (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2007 (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.