Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panos London

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 merge to Panos Institute. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Panos London

Panos London (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)

Non-governmental organisation with no real notability. I don't see any significant coverage from reliable sources; all sources on the article are unreliable and/or related to the organisation, with the possible exception of the print source and the obvious exception of the BBC source. These, however, don't give significant coverage to Panos London. PROD removed without comment by someone other than the author. Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The sources are weak but the organization appears to be legit and international. If more outside sources can be cited, it could become a keep. Georgiamonet (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Some more external sources that could make the article stronger? See below:
  • Partnership with the Guardian newspaper for their 2009 Development journalist competition Guardian development competition about page
  • Continued relationship with the Guardian newspaper, in particular, over many years Guardian search results for "Panos"
  • Receives partnership funding from UK's Department for international development DFID PPA details
  • Has nearly twenty years of running various oral testimony projects with testimonies published and collected both in original and international languages, working with 50 different partners in various countries Panos London oral testimony programme. I've used a link to the Panos London oral testimony page here only as short hand, I'm not sure it would be difficult to verify the facts through secondary sources (either of printed materials produced, or from external organisation's websites)
  • Oral testimony + photography exhibition at the UN in May 2009 From Sahel to New York video. Again I've used a link to the video largely as shorthand. It's clear the event happened (it's a video from the event), but it should also be verifiable from UN sources external of Panos London.
  • Archives of Ndesanjo Machaa, a journalist, who worked with Panos London at the 2005 G8, are online here. He makes mention of doing stuff with BBC Five Live, The Metro (London newspaper), and the Guardian again. (added by Eddb83 (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
  • Sorry, I removed the PROD, but I suspect that was because I didn't adequately understand the function of it as new to Wikipedia. Apologies.
  • Eddb83 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Edd, the point of a PROD is to delete an article that nobody believes should be kept. Although I disagree with your removal, I'm happy to be the first to say that you didn't do anything wrongly. In the future, it will help if you explain in your edit summary why you removed it; but by removing it as you did, you did nothing improperly. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, okay, good to know. Thanks. Hopefully my points above explained why I removed the PROD, since I think the article meets the notability criteria on Wikipedia Eddb83 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Merge with Panos Institute. Much of the information in the Panos London article actually applies to the worldwide organisation. Whatever the technical notability status may be of Panos London I think that we would serve our readers better by expanding the Panos Institute article with sections about the various branches. If the institute article ever gets too large we can split out the branches in summary style, but we are nowhere near that point yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
• merge per Phil. Essentially a duplicate article. Our current standards for separate articles for local branches of an organization are rather restrictive, and I think it best to keep them that way, and merge articles unless unless there is clear reason to do otherwise DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 6 February 2010 (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.