Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smiley Children Society

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Smiley Children Society

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Smiley Children Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable NGO, i removed many references of their Official site which was used as references. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dear Mr. Syed A. Hussain Quadri,

we understand that you have marked the Wikipedia page for NGO organization for deletion. we are writing to you to request that you reconsider your decision.

We are currently in the process of retrieving as much notable information as possible from the internet and the Wayback Machine. We understand that it may take some time to do this, but we are committed to providing reliable sources that will prove the authenticity of this organization.

We believe that this page is important because it will help to raise awareness of organization. It will also provide a valuable resource for people who are interested in learning more about our organization and its mission.

we would be grateful if you would give us some time to complete the process of gathering reliable sources. We are committed to working with you to ensure that the Wikipedia page for organization is accurate and informative.

Thank you for your time and consideration. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• @CAJaganaddamRJY: who is "we"? Wikishovel (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  we , wikipedia family CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete, not yet notable by WP:ORG. Article is a lot less promotional than it was, and the worst of the WP:REFBOMB has been trimmed, but what's left is nearly all primary sources: listings of their charity registration, donation pages on various sites, links about their founder that don't mention the organisation, etc. I can't find significant secondary coverage of the organisation in WP:RS, just short articles in local news about their projects. Wikishovel (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• I received an email from a company proposing to create a Wikipedia page for me in exchange for a payment ranging from $1000 to $1500. I'm curious to know if this is a legitimate service provided by Wikipedia or if it might be a potential scam. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's a scam: please see WP:SCAM. Wikishovel (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for information CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep ,Less promotional , may be reviewed , organisation looks like, it has less presence in digital news, their images with children and work makes me feel genuine work and very old organisation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badugun (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — Badugun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Thanks for addition of information CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep the said sources are verifiable, Requesting Admin to Acess again , while we try to improve the quality content on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Thanks for addition of information & Research, Happy Diwali (Festival of Lights) CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Keep The article has been significantly improved and is no longer promotional. While the remaining references are primarily primary sources, there are also short articles in local news about the organization's projects. and Verified by Nasscom Bigtech Foundation, These articles can be used to support the article's claims, and additional secondary coverage may be found in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.249.141.157 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — 117.249.141.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Thanks for addition of information & Research, Happy Diwali (Festival of Lights) CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• The article has been significantly improved and is now about a notable NGO. The editor has removed many references to the organization's official website, which is a good sign that the article is becoming more balanced and objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.28.246.117 (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC) — 103.28.246.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Thanks for addition of information & Research, Happy Diwali (Festival of Lights) CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dear, can you re asses now, CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete. Sources do not establish notability, this does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Votes from sock puppet accounts as seen above or attempts to canvass other users such as [1] or [2] are not helping matters. - MrOllie (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. I intended to seek assistance in enhancing notability and kindly asked users to review and make necessary modifications, additions, or deletions to information or sources. However, I was surprised to see a swift decision to nominate for AFD or move to drafts. Regarding concerns about sock puppet accounts, I've previously mentioned that people residing in Andhra Pradesh, specifically the Rajahmundry area, are familiar with this topic. If any users express a desire to delete the article in a discussion, it shouldn't be considered as sock puppetry. Additionally, intentional efforts by individuals to comment positively while secretly acting as puppets in a deletion debate should be taken into account. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• keep found news articles, feel it follows wikipedia notability guidelines, as it has reliable sources

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/blanketsannouncement.webp

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/worldartday2021.webp

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/SLATESPOTAVARAM.webp

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/blaskslatehindi.webp

https://smileychildrensociety.in/img/medias/PrajaSakthifeb2022.webp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F0:118D:8684:54CA:C474:1D04:B12E (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC) — 2409:40F0:118D:8684:54CA:C474:1D04:B12E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete not notable. blatant attempt to push this article through. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• The article has undergone significant improvements, moving away from promotional content and reducing excessive referencing. It is noted that verification on several websites, including Give.do, Nasscom BigTech Foundation, GuideStar, and Give to Asia, involves thorough documentation checks by the respective NGOs. The absence of an online presence, news coverage, and valid documentation prevents the creation of profiles on these platforms, adding a layer of credibility to the verification process.

While acknowledging the concern about the predominantly primary sources, it is crucial to recognize the genuine efforts made by the editor to trim excessive referencing and create a more balanced article. Notably, there is a mention of short articles in local news covering the organization's projects, adding a layer of secondary coverage.

The editor has successfully removed references to the organization's official website, indicating a commitment to objectivity and balance. The organization's verification by Nasscom BigTech Foundation further adds credibility to its notability.

It's essential to consider that the organization may not have a significant digital footprint, yet the genuine work and longstanding presence are evident from images showcasing their efforts with children. The focus on improving the quality of content on Wikipedia and the request for Admin review demonstrate a commitment to transparency and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines.

In conclusion, given the efforts to address concerns, the credibility of verification sources, and the organization's significant local impact, it is recommended to keep the article. Further improvements and collaborative editing may enhance its overall notability on Wikipedia. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - References fail WP:ORGCRIT. The number of IP !votes here is also concerning. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• The page includes references from approximately 24 websites, with the majority of them undergoing verification primarily through the documentation check process of specific NGOs (such as Give.do, Nasscom BigTech Foundation, GuideStar, Give to Asia, etc.). These verification processes often necessitate the submission of valid and authenticated documents by the respective NGOs. Notably, the absence of an online presence, news coverage, and valid documentation may prevent the creation of a profile for a particular NGO on these platforms. It is likely/not that this page will be accessed and discussed mainly by editors who possess knowledge about charitable organizations and are familiar with the intricacies of the verification procedures employed by these websites. CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability is not determined with quantity (other than "mutiple" which indicates more than one), it is about quality. Adding more references is just creating a WP:REFBOMB.

• Comment - Hey Editors, after research in website found on google, i got some links which states the organization's presence have a look ! thank you

Some Websites tell about this organisation

1)https://fundraisers.giveindia.org/nonprofits/smiley-children-society

2)https://pages.razorpay.com/smiley

3)https://paypal.me/smileyindia

4)https://www.linkedin.com/company/14996302

5)https://in.linkedin.com/company/smiley-children-society

6)https://www.f6s.com/smiley-children-society

7)https://bigtech.nasscomfoundation.org/user/192588/organizations/174102

8)https://self4society.mygov.in/story/special-gifts-to-smiley-children-society-angara-feeding-center-children/

9)https://self4society.mygov.in/story/broken-hand-of-old-lady-rescued-by-smiley-children-society/

10)https://greatnonprofits.org/org/smiley-children-society

11)rss feed : https://www.smileychildrensociety.in/blog-rss.xml

12)https://smiley-children-society.fandom.com/wiki/Smiley_Children_Society_Wiki

13)https://www.betterplace.org/en/organisations/57332-smiley-children-society?utm_campaign=email-notifications&utm_medium=www-betterplace-org--en--organisations--57332-smiley-children-society&utm_source=organisation_manager_notifier-organisation_registration

14)https://www.startus.cc/company/smiley-children-society — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 04:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

None of this remotely meets the sourcing requirements. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

Shortcuts

WP:NEXIST

WP:NPOSSIBLE

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.

Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete -- The subject fails GNG and NORG, regardless of the refbombing and the half-dozen IP votes. JTtheOG (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  half-dozen IP votes : I can see this for every article for deletion, and i tried to trace them who is it.. i think its a part of escalation and showing a new reason that by a particular team/group, in front face : it shows like a positive in debate, but in real its looking like.. the author has making it done as puppets so delete this page thats it !

  Editors are also coming to conclusion by this other than checking actual notability or related websites or online presence .

  today morning i have seen two IP Address removed AFD tag, and then some editor again reverted it !

  im aware that, debate must be closed by a administrator, so i will not try to do this cheap tricks ! CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 05:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Nah, I looked at the sources. I appreciate your dedication to this, but I would advise you to take a look at WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist so the closer can assess this discussion in light of possible sockpuppetry or canvassing going on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet notability guidelines for organizations and its associated primary criteria. A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. No, the references in the article do not meet the primary criteria, and no, CAJaganaddamRJY, do not bludgeon the process. Tails Wx 02:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Some one Posting All the Afd's Here, from here i think canvassing going on CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 04:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Tried to get information from Reputed websites and pasted here

• 1. Behance - Smiley Children Society Work Images
• 2. Give.do - Conforming Legal Nature of Organisation
• 3. Medium.com - Story about childrens day by Founder
• 4. Andhra Pradesh Times - Manufacture of Disposable Pads for Women
• 5.Guide Star - Guide Star Certification of Smiley Organisation
• 6. Great non Profits.Org - EIN Certification for Smiley
• 7. Andhra Pradesh Now - Smiley Gets FCRA Approval News
• 8. NGO Darphan - Indian Govt. Website
• 9. AndhraOnline.in - Location Verified Business Profile
• 10. Idealist - Pothavaram Feeding Center
• 11. Self4Society.mygov.in - Smiley Story from Govt Website
• 12. Andhra Pradesh Now - YSR Award Nomination
• 13. NGO4u.com - Legality
• 14. Google Maps - Smiley All Branches
• 15. NGO Foundation - List of Members in Smiley Children Society
• 16. StartUS - Org Info

CAJaganaddamRJY (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

References

None of this remotely meets the sourcing requirements. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails both general and organisation specific notability guidelines. No useful, significant coverage online. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2023 (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.