Deletion of Friends of organization

Comment: The whole thing, mashing together all these various "friends of" connotations looks to me to be , the synthesis and assertion of an aggregate relationship that likely appears nowhere else in any reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: It appears that the term "Friends organization" has a much different meaning in international fundraising than it does in the library world; drawing the distinction between these two uses of the term in different fields would seem an appropriate topic for an article. I added 2 quick sections with quotes; someone who knows more about legal matters than me would need to develop them. The article meets  for libraries, in that it's the American Library Association that's providing support for founding these groups. I would think that The Council on Foundations would be a reliable source for international groups. I'm not sure how all the other examples of Friends organizations fit in, or how this term is used outside the US. Perhaps the other groups could simply be mentioned as uses of this name which may have a different purpose
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: It is a moment's work to find secondary sources which discuss the topic in a general and detailed way.  For example, see ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0yNNTkCqKcAC&pg=PA129 Museum basics - Friend Organisations and Membership Programmes'', ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=isEhAQAAIAAJ Volunteers in museums and heritage organisations'', ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Bz-DgFEyzSwC Museum volunteers: good practice in the management of volunteers'', ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Vg95x7aVlQQC&pg=PA194 State of Opera'', &c.  The claim that no such sources exist is thus shown to be quite false and so the topic should be kept in accordance with our |editing policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: a liberal sprinkling of  &  combined with irrelevancies (the Society of Friends), a ref-bombed (half the references in the entire article) single sentence on tax status and a . Little indication of a cohesive topic, let alone one for which "sources address the subject directly in detail, ''so no original research is needed to extract the content
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:DICTDEF)

Comment: is this article about "a membership organization, support group, community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing", charities whose sole purpose is to raise money for a specific foreign charity (both regardless of name), or organisations with "Friends of" in their name (regardless of purpose), or something more/less/other, ''and more importantly'' can anybody cite a source that explicitly states that it is one-and-not-the-others without having to violate o original research in order to reach this definition
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Still not a single  source has been shown to have in-depth coverage about this type of organization as something special. The whole article appears to be an exercise in  -- original research. It's like someone would write the article on programming language by just using various existing languages as examples, and inferring various things about them without citing any books about the topic as a whole. And I'm being kind in that comparison. This article is more like writing and article on Programming languages that begin with the letter C about C, C#, C++, and ChucK (the latter has no logical relation to the rest, but hey, it starts with C
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SECONDARY||WP:OR)

Comment: Friends of" organization (etymology)'''. Taking the above discussion into account,   I attempted a reorganization and rewrite, and discovered that there is a Museums and Libraries AfD. Could we hold off on any deletion of this article for a day or two to see if that community has any input
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIV||WP:ALLARGUMENTS)

Comment: The current state of this article reeks of . (Comparing Friends of the Earth, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, and Friends of Dorothy as similar types of organziations because of their names? Seriously?)  Can a complete overwrite fix the issues? No.  The first two paragraphs are complete , and is proven incorrect by just some of the "examples" listed.  The third paragraph is not, but would make much more sense to be included in an existing article, like Charitable organization
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)

Comment: per the Huginn and Muninn|wise Hrafn. This isn't really an encyclopædia article, and it is unlikely ever to be one; it is a mishmash of text about wildly differing organisations which just happen to have a couple of easily-googled words in their name. Collecting them together in one place is coatrack / synth / OR at best. If a subset of them have a particular tax status which is notable (and which is shared with a much larger number of non-friends organisations), then ''write an article on that tax status instead''. If a small subset of them are friends of museums or friends of some other specific thing such that they actually have something in common beyond the word "friends", try writing an article on those alone, if you can get them over the |notability threshold for that grouping
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)