Talk:Saltley Gate Peace Group

message: The general consensus for notibility seem to be satisfied:
"General notability guideline
Shortcut:
WP:GNG
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
    * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]
    * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
    * "Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
    * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5]
    * "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[6]
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article."
There's a wide number of respectable and verifiable multiple third party sources for this organisation and its ongoing previous and recent work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.19.154 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Saltley Gate Peace Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311135150/http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.560405.0.flags_ban_for_eid_clampdown.php to http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.560405.0.flags_ban_for_eid_clampdown.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928145510/http://www.theasiantoday.com/article.aspx?articleId=239 to http://www.theasiantoday.com/article.aspx?articleId=239
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928011401/http://www.muslimdirectory.co.uk/viewarticle.php?id=170&PHPSESSID=c2f1abe62c63292c625963f4a6f2b82f to http://www.muslimdirectory.co.uk/viewarticle.php?id=170&PHPSESSID=c2f1abe62c63292c625963f4a6f2b82f
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003092417/http://www.methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=pandw.content&cmid=110 to http://www.methodist.org.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=pandw.content&cmid=110
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified