Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF)

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. Tone 20:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A WP:MILL type self-proclaimed think tank having near about no substantial research output or any encyclopedic value. In other words, this article is a straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP by all means. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of this article is User:Randfiskin is also involved in launching (trying to work up on) non-notable wiki pages in a very short period, V-NOVA, Vogue Institute of Art & Design and Draft:Vibhav Kant Upadhyay which have been earlier either deleted or moved to draft space for various reasons. Though the ID itself was made in 2017, it went active on July 1, 2020, by performing its first edit at Juli Berwald's page. As per my basic understanding, this ID is probably involved in "Paid Edits/WP:PAID" without disclosure. Kindly note, due diligence is required. -Hatchens (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the claims are baseless and there is no evidence of paid. Note this account is created in March 2020 and the user is only interested to deleting the articles no matter whether it is notable or not you may check the history.

Special Note: This user is attacking the article and playing with good articles. Most of his nominations are false and saved as "Keep" or "Speedy Keep". Such as IILM Institute for Higher Education, Care Hospitals, Krishna Shankar, Ansal University, Radio Mango, Zambar Restaurent, Baseer Ali, Liam Brennan, Dinesh Parmar, Biplob, Rachel Goenka, Pramati Technologies, Sayantani Guhathakurta, Shivin Narang, Artech, Audrish Banerjee, and there is a long list of "Keep" result. This account must be blocked immediately. He is destroying good articles on Wikipedia. Randfiskin (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Randfiskin, your allegation is duly accepted. If an article passes the AfD on its merit, then well and good. If not, then it gets deleted as per the consensus. That's why I have initiated this AfD discussion. Let everyone chip in and let the sanity prevail. -Hatchens (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization has enough citations that are from reliable resources and independent of the subject. Most of the coverage is significant from reliable resources and passes WP:RS. It also works closely with Government. The organization is internationally acclaimed worked with United Nations and many notable International organizations such as UNESCO, UNICEF, Google, Facebook. clearly passes WP:GNG. Randfiskin (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kindly do note, this Keep vote, is added by the creator of this article. -Hatchens (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per my understanding, creator of the article has right to put keep or delete vote.Randfiskin (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course, as a creator, you have the right to put whatever you like. It's a Free world. The comment which I have added are for those who will chip in their views. It is not meant to stop you but to notify others. -Hatchens (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: vanity page maintained by WP:MILL and passing mentions. I'm also unbolding the extraneity above, which makes it appear that far more of importance is being discussed than actually is. ——Serial 10:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Special Note: The creator of this article has notified the nominator of this AfD to WP:ANB. Kindly follow that parallel discussion by clicking here. -Hatchens (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence - It does have the hallmarks of paid/promotional editing, but when I do my own search I do find some material. The thing is, I don't have a great sense of reliability of these sources, so could probably be convinced either way. Here's some of what I see, though: meritalk overview, some coverage of a program it did in partnership with Facebook in News18 here and here, articles on zeenews.india.com, higher education digest, express computer about some project with Google... there are some others... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to remove the promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move into draftspace: While the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated there and this AfD, it needs a lot of cleanup. Anything WP:PROMOTIONAL should be removed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to remove the promotionalism - which is somewhat apparent on first read. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we do not keep spam even in draftspace; if anybody wants to write a neutral article they should do so from scratch. Sandstein 09:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and especially Sandstein who articulated my opinion very succinctly. Ifnord (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2020 (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.