Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cairo International Model United Nations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. The article has been substantially improved during the course of the discussion. There is now a firm consensus to keep it. Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo International Model United Nations[edit]

Cairo International Model United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

G-new indicates it exist but not much beyond that Falis WP:GNG Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added in more references and an EL that covers all the information stated in the article and its notability. Being the largest Model UN in the Middle East and, seemingly, one of the most important is the world is definitely an indication of its notability. SilverserenC 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete model UNs tend not to be notable except to those who actually participate in them, and sparse level of coverage confirms this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Sparse level of coverage"? Did you look at the references and the EL's? SilverserenC 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can verify it exists but beyond that the sources don't say enough to write about it.Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...yes they do? This one alone is an article entirely about the group. SilverserenC 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Student newspapers usually arent Sufficient for a Organization to be fully notable Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In Egypt, there has long been a need for an independent, privately owned newspaper to provide unbiased and forthright news and analysis. Daily News Egypt (which launched in May 2005 under the brand name The Daily Star Egypt) is the country's only independent English-language daily. It carries local business, political and cultural, news and analysis, from an Egyptian perspective. Daily News Egypt is distributed with the International Herald Tribune (IHT) the world's foremost global newspaper. The IHT is the only English-language international paper printed in Egypt and available the same day. Together with the IHT's first-class international news service, Daily News Egypt provides readers with a complete bouquet of all the news they will need."
I'm not sure what you mean about student newspaper? You mean the ones for the college? SilverserenC 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears i was incorrect, I was under the impression that it was the Student new paper but one article does not make a subject notable. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just went and added some more sources. SilverserenC 20:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sources two and eight are press releases, not articles. One is a SPS, the book you found is the an Author Bio blurb in the back of a book. four and seven are both press relases hosted on the schools website. 6 is highly questionable at best. Just saying your trumpeting 8 sources and 7 of those are definitely questionable meritsWeaponbb7 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me how source 8 is a press release? SilverserenC 22:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
has identical Language by two different papers, its a press release. Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weaponbb7's findings, and previous precedent that Model UNs are usually not notable, and generally deleted. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a valid reason for deletions... If something is generally deleted doesn't mean it's the right thing to do... The article includes references for notability and is very well known throughout the middle east. Various notable speakers have asserted its notability. I don't see why you want to delete it so much--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing two non-PR non-school publications that cover the topic in detail. [1] might be a press release but it isn't listed as one and [2] looks very strong indeed. [3] also has reasonable coverage. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
look at the two sources weekly.ahram.org & albawaba.com and you provided. Compare the langauge between the two... Its an identical match which leads me to think they are portions of a press releases as i have not found any relation between the two news services. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could be that one took from the other? If you have no real proof that it's a press release, you can't just surmise that from similar news articles. SilverserenC 17:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO thats what they look like to me, but either way press release or plagiarism that makes me question both their reliabilities. Having worked in PR office at my school that is what they smell like to me. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okaaaay...but without any valid proof, you can't label either one as a press release and, thus, have to regard it as a normal source and, thus, it is reliable. SilverserenC 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if there is any doubt of a sources reliability it is not a WP:RS both smell fishy either way niether seems reliable to me Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, either way it's reliable, just might not be independent. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, then, with them, the sources are more than enough to meet GNG? SilverserenC 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, if it is a PR it doesn't count for WP:N. I have doubts about it being so, but I'd say it's 50/50. Without that we've got one _really_ good source and one in-passing reference plus a bunch of other PR-releases which makes it really tight. Finding another source would be handy, even a good one (in detail) from a school paper. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the one that's an EL? SilverserenC 20:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This could be useful as well. SilverserenC 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's plenty. Are they in the article? Hobit (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The EL is, the other one isn't yet. SilverserenC 00:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has various independent references verifying notability.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [4]CIMUN is the oldest student activity at AUC, and has become the largest Model United Nations program outside North America. Notable coverage of the organization found. Dream Focus 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong express 16:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it wasn't me. :D SilverserenC 16:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources added appear to satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWong express 16:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is significantly better shape than it was at nomination. I have greatly reorganized the page and expanded on it significantly, incorporating even more third-party sources, and expanded the article. —CodeHydro 18:18, 13 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cairo_International_Model_United_Nations&oldid=1146613232"