Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advancing Science Worldwide
- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Advancing Science Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe this charity meets WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, not too surprising really as it was only founded in April this year. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup charity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Blocked socks |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello, I am the creator of the article. I do not have any conflicts of interest. I have a job as a systems analyst for a Fortune 500 company in Arizona. My intention was not to create a free ad for this charity. I have recently joined some service/volunteering organizations, including the Kiwanis Club, and I have had volunteering experience with many notable nonprofit organizations in my area. I saw that most of them are not listed on Wikpedia so I just wanted to create articles for them so I can improve Wikipedia. I am also working on an article for another organization in my state, the Womens Economic Institute. My account is not for the single purpose of creating this article. Please do not delete this. Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Yoyowhatsup2. Articles on the English Wikipedia have to meet very strict content criteria for inclusion, namely they must have substantial coverage, in multiple independent, reliable sources. This usually means an article or several paragraphs (Or a segment lasting a few minutes for broadcast media) in major news organizations like the New York Times or BBC News. This is necessary to meet our verifiability standards—any major claim must be backed up by a reliable source, so if you have no reliable sources, you don't really have an article. This also means that your own experiences while volunteering for these organizations isn't sufficient, since you aren't considered an independent publisher with known editorial standards. This has no exceptions for charitable organizations, and Wikipedia is not for giving these organizations publicity, even if that would be nice. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and to do so it is very selective. If you want to write about these organizations, consider starting a blog—there are many places that allow anyone to start a free blog. But, unfortunately, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and therefore, on Wikipedia at least, it must be deleted, though if it receives independent coverage in the future, it will likely be reconsidered for inclusion.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Hello Alpha3031. Advancing Science Worldwide has a lot written about them on their GuideStar page available here. GuideStar, an independent organization holding charities accountable, has written a lot about Advancing Science Worldwide, including their programs, leaders, board of directors, and board leadership and oversight practices. Although GuideStar is usually considered a simple listing which usually is not acceptable on Wikipedia, GuideStar only writes so much for few organizations. That is why I think that source is acceptable. Most nonprofit organizations (many of which are listed on Wikipedia), such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Guidestar page available here) or the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (GuideStar page available here) do not have such detailed articles about them on GuideStar. I understand that the Arizona Corporation Commission source may not be that great but even the source from the IRS is more detailed and has more written about this organization than normally written about nonprofit organizations. That is why I think that these sources do qualify as acceptable by Wikipedia. Even though they are normally treated as a simple directory type listing, in this case, these sources have a lot more than normal written about this organization.———Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Above comment was made by the main account of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoyowhatsup2 who created the article. Excelse (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Blocked socks having a conversation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Blocked sock |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I would say that the article is notable and the sources cited demonstrate that. Several of the sources have detailed articles about Advancing Science Worldwide. As I have said in response to Alpha3031, the article meets the criteria for WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH.Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Sources are primary or otherwise not significant in-depth coverage. MB 21:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello MB. Although some of the sources are not in-depth, there are definitely several in-depth ones referenced, such as the GuideStar article or the Fiscal Sponsor Directory article. As I have said in response to Alpha3031, several of the sources fit the criteria in WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- How many time are these people going to !vote ? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hello FlightTime. Sorry about that. I am new to the deletion process and Wikipedia does not explain the voting very well. In fact, they simply say that voting is discouraged and do not explain proper formatting for it. Sorry about that. I have since removed the extra bold "keeps".Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- How many time are these people going to !vote ? - FlightTime (open channel) 22:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- None of the sources are primary. They are all secondary sources and as Yoyowhatsup2 said, I think that they all fit the criteria that you say they don't (WP:GNG and WP:NORG).–——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Blocked sock |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Keep - The article meets the criteria for WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH because most of the sources cited meet the criteria for significance. Parmaparma (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC) — Parmaparma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
|
- Comment: From what I can see, all of the citations mentioned look like comprehensive directory listings. Even if they have more content than the other listings, that isn't really sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Some of the examples given on WP:ORG as what constitutes substantial coverage are "An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization" or "A report by a consumer watchdog organizations on the safety of a specific product". The GuideStar articles, Fiscal Sponsor Directory article, VolunteerMatch article, and some others are more similar to this than the "simple listings or compilations" that WP:ORG describes as trivial coverage. Many sources tell a good history of the organization like an encyclopedia and the GuideStar article incorporates elements of both examples. Some of the sources are closer to the trivial coverage but several of the sources do qualify as substantial coverage given the examples in WP:ORG. That is why I think that the article satisfies the notability guidelines in WP:ORG.Parmaparma (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- As I said a couple of comments above (in response to FlightTime), I think that when we thoroughly read the sources, we can see that several of them meet the requirements.–——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's fair, but given that pretty much any organisation of a category would be listed on the mentioned sources, I don't believe that its sufficient to assert notability. You do make reasonable points though, and I would appreciate further comments from other editors more familiar with these types of sources.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nomonator comment Just pointing out that user Parmaparma and user Pandhi4839 are both apparently new editors whose first edits were on August 19th and whose edits are almost exclusively in connection with this AfD. Parmaparma nominated Applied Science University (Bahrain) for deletion at 23.10, half an hour after his first edit. Meanwhile user Pandhi4839 added a correctly formatted reference to the article Advancing Science Worldwide with the edit summary "Added extra source. I am a new user so please tell me if I did anything wrong.)" Nor is user Yoyowhatsup2 quite the naive new editor he claims to be, closing several AfDs as "keep" earlier today. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Checkuser note: Yoyowhatsup2, Pandhi4839, and Parmaparma are Confirmed socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoyowhatsup2.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2018 (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.