Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahai Internet Agency

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. Sandstein 06:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahai Internet Agency[edit]

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

No third party reliable sources from non-self-published sources indicating the notability of the organization. All the links on Google are either from the Baha'i internet agency itself, or from supporters/detractors of the agency on personal websites Jeff3000 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The following entry on Sourcewatch is notable and is a third party reliable source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency. --Fatimiya (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sourcewatch is a wiki with no editorial oversight and is considered a self-published source as per WP:V. Regards, -- 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Sourcewatch has more editorial oversight than wikipedia here and is run by the Center for Media and Democracy. The administrators have more say so as well. Your comment as such is inaccurate and misrepresenting what Sourcewatch does --Fatimiya (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also, we have some unofficial agreement about subjects that heavily rely upon a single independent source. Articles on WP need to have multiple, independent sources. Furthermore, it's not a very good source because it is based on user-submitted content. It does not have editorial oversight per this statement on its general disclaimer page:

No formal peer review

Sorry, but it's not going to cut it as a source. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Universal House of Justice independent sources are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. No notability established. References are primary sources only. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:52, 2 August 2011 (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.