Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takriz

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takriz

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

Not expanded since 2009, unclear for readers Green Giant (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I did a bit of searching and have been able to track down sources and provide clarification (see the revised article), so as the issues above have been addressed, this article can remain.Asnac (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - it is both clearer as to its signifigance and references. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Article has been improved, but references are stilll deficient. Only one Independent Reliable Source is cited, a BBC article which gives only one sentence to the group. I'd love to find an excuse to keep this, so maybe more refs can be found? --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the clear standards of WP:NGO, specifically "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." Wickedjacob (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only "coverage" appears to be the passing mention in the BBC article cited in the article; any other mentions I can find seem similarly trivial. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — until a few minutes ago, the article had three references, two of which are from "takriz.com" and "takriz.net" which hardly adds to the notability of the "organisation". The third reference was a BBC article which mentions Takriz but the wording in the article was misleading:

"During the 2010-11 Tunisian anti-government protests, which were noteworthy for the major role of internet communications in the mobilisation of demonstrations, Takriz was a significant player.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12180954</ref>
The BBC article actually says:

"It's like a game of hide and seek," says one blogger who goes by the name of Foetus.
He is one of two people who founded Tunisia's opposition Takriz cyber group in 1998, and now operates out of another North African country, which he declined to name for fear that he could be identified and his family targeted.

To me, that does not say that Takriz played any part in the uprising, let alone a significant part. I have therefore commented out the misleading sentence. Green Giant (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball Watcher 01:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just searched the websites of four reliable newspapers, and though I found dozens of results for "Tunisia" in each one of them, there was not a single result for "Takriz" in any of them. Whether or not the group is noteworthy, I don't think the reliable sources we need to justify keeping this article are out there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:45, 11 May 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.