Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslims in New York City Project

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Muslims in New York City Project}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslims_in_New_York_City_Project Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Muslims in New York City Project}})

Lack of references to establish notability. While the project published many papers (which can be found on Google Scholar), those papers are about their own subjects, not this research funding vehicle itself, and generally only mention this project as an acknowledgement, rather than discussing it substantially in its own right. I can't find any reliable source which actually discusses this project in detail, as opposed to just acknowledging it as a funding source or academic affiliation. Previously PRODed but PROD contested by User:DGG. SJK (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have found one brief article talking about this project (as opposed to acknowledging it in passing as a funding source or affiliation) – https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15604451.pdf – although, since the project was run out of Columbia University, and the author identifies as an academic at Columbia, its independence is questionable. Furthermore, we arguably need more than a one page article in a newsletter to reach the threshold required by WP:GNG. SJK (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, I ddeprod any article (about 1 a day) where I think a community discussion has some poreasonable probability of finding sources. About half of these get kept, half deleted. I'm just screening , not making a judgment. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with {{u|SJK}}, we need significant coverage, and that just hasn't been provided. Much of what I'm finding is 9/11-aftermath stuff, so perhaps redirect to Reactions to the September 11 attacks#Muslim Americans? SITH (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• :{{ping|StraussInTheHouse}}: not opposed in principle to a redirect. However, I wonder how much sense it makes to redirect a title to an article section which (right now) doesn't even mention what the title refers to? And we could add a mention there, although we'd have to ask how significant this academic research project was in terms of Muslim American reactions to 9/11. The problem with redirects to sections, is even if you add some mention of the redirected topic to the section, someone later on might decide to cut it out, or the article might be reorganised to remove the section in question. And then, years from now, someone will stumble upon the redirect, and struggle to work out why it exists. SJK (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

:::{{u|SJK}}, all fair points. Delete it is from me then. SITH (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.