Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dinah Project

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dinah Project

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

Website of questionable notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources is neither cited nor apparent in a Google search. As is to be expected, the article reads vaguely promotional (I cleaned the lead up somewhat) and as a part of the website's advocacy of its issues. Also, the website seems to be dead, so future coverage is unlikely. Sandstein 21:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable website. I didn't find any reliable sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. A simple Google scholar search found several good sources. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A similar Google books search, and one Highbeam search, found some of the same sources. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced sourced like "https://www.amazon.ca/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=9781608994373" constitute something related to this organization. They seem like two distinct uses of 'The Dinah Project'. I haven't read in details, so I can't say for sure, but a simple google search does not seem to distinguish between the two, if the two are indeed distinct. There's lots of thing that seems to be related to Monica Coleman, an American theologian, and very little on the UK-based initiative. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing sources, none (or very little, well below the treshhold to meet WP:N) seem to pertain to the (dead/inactive!) UK-based initiative called 'The Dinah Project', which instead seem to be about a book/personal project/church/something related to Monica Coleman. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for the noticeable signs of necessary notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEBCRIT. The book by Monica Coleman and this website look to just share a name. The Dinah Project book doesn't look to mention this website and instead points to Coleman's own website. Likewise the Dinah Project website doesn't mention Coleman. @Bearian: I think the sources you're seeing are for the book, not the subject of this article. Am I missing something? After deleting, we could probably Redirect to Monica Coleman as it's fairly standard to redirect from book titles to authors. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Monica Coleman. No reliable, notable coverage of the website but the book is notable enough for a redirect. Smartyllama (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2016 (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.