Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.E. Can Lead

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 redirect to Isha Sesay#W.E. Can Lead. clpo13_(talk) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

W.E. Can Lead

[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)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRITE, written like a press release. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isha Sesay. I would say merge, but I can't find any reliable secondary sources on the topic, so the existing line there is probably sufficient. MarginalCost (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a non-profit organization for the education of girls in Africa. Some of them are poor, maybe most. Do you really want to put the policy's of notability over that girls fate? It's worth a page here at least. In August 2018 there were more then 600 girls at the age from 12 to 18 participating in it <- this is notable. My opinion. Tlwm (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how not having a Wikipedia article is going to affect the organization. Moreover, the article as written almost exclusively cites the organization's own material, which is not reliable. Hosting unverifiable content on Wikipedia helps no one. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does UNICEF have a page? Is this an encyclopedia? Tlwm (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this again a size does matter discussion? Those girls learn to have self-confidence and to keep a household or even an own enterprise in some cases, maybe even states. That can have very positive effect on a society. This is why I think this organization is notable. People from Africa use the Wikipedia, too. So.....?!? Tlwm (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those mom's will be able to educate their children, too. That is good and important, or isn't it? Tlwm (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tlwm: I understand your concerns. No one is saying that the organization is not important, or does not do good and important work. The presence of a Wikipedia article isn't intended to be a value judgement; there are plenty of bad people with Wikipedia articles, and plenty of good people without articles, and that's okay. Wikipedia's standard of inclusion is notability, which is usually measured, under the General Notability Guideline, by whether multiple reliable secondary sources have written about the subject. At the moment, all the sources cited are either from the organization itself, or not sufficiently independent of it. (The What We See article is somewhat closer, but it's almost entirely an interview with the founder, not independent reporting.) In the case of UNICEF you mention, there are several independent newspapers, academics, and foundations that have written about its work. That isn't saying UNICEF is a better organization, it's just that Wikipedia now has enough information written from a neutral party to base an article off of.

If you want to change our minds - and I think everyone here, myself included, is open to having our minds changed - the best way to do so is to find multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources that give significant coverage to the organization. MarginalCost (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarginalCost:I see what you mean. I will keep searching. This small organizations have a huge potential, because with education you change the whole continent. 600 girls means maybe 500 moms or more with around 4 children in Nigeria. All will be able to learn something and give it to their children..... The importance of this overwhelming. They do not teach (pro or contra) religion in that school, which means they learn something useful. I think the importance and notability (without third party sources) can not be overstated here. — Btw. Am I the only one who find it very problematic that the Wikipedia seams to record just well established Organizations/Artists/Labels/etc.? Doesn't make this the wiki itself obsolete? I know Isha Sesay since around ten years (by watching CNN Int.). I know she is worth my trust. This policies about notability strangle the wikipedia. Tlwm (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarginalCost:Is an article on Reuters about Idris Elba auctioning a valentine's date in favor of W.E. Can Lead a proof of notability? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-charity-valentines/sweetheart-british-actor-idris-elba-auctions-valentines-date-for-charity-idUSKBN14W2GE

@Tlwm: we're getting closer, but still probably not. The issue is that the article doesn't really provide significant coverage of the organization itself. Check out WP:ORGDEPTH for a more detailed look at the expectations for significant coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and MarginalCost: Another argument, if I am from Africa and want to find out about W.E. Can Lead, I will not search for Isha Sesay. If you want to find out information (which is the purpose of an encyclopedia) on the UNESCO, will you search for Audrey Azoulay? Isha Sesay is the patron for W.E. Can Lead. Tlwm (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I spoke in favor of a redirect. If they search for the article title they will be redirected. MarginalCost (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That will not allow to inform about that project, and would be as far as I know also a breach of Wiki policies (of notability and the relevance of sources). What can I write here? The strict interpretation of this policy leads to no new articles on independent topics. Tlwm (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and MarginalCost: So you want to know about a Ford F150 you search for Henry Ford, to find a one liner in Henry Ford's article? ....?!?... There are over 600 children and multiple adults involved in this project. You find 600 children who else highly likely will end in some kind of poverty irrelevant? :| Tlwm (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a useful line of argumentation: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a humanitarian outreach organisation. From what I see in the guidelines, there's no provision for a moralistic exception to what qualifies as a subject for/what constitutes a proper article. If it's that important a group, someone is bound to have done objective reporting on it. PaulCHebert (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill and MarginalCost: I merged it into Isha Sesays page and created a redirected in the W.E. Can Lead page. Please prevent User PaulCHerbert again from destroying it, he has deleted a lot in articles I have done before. He follows me and destroys my work. Tlwm (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulCHebert This is not how the world works. Else I would not need to discuss here. -- Yes, this is an encyclopedia, that is why I added it. Tlwm (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@all I excuse myself for complications I created. Tlwm (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the bold step of redirecting the article in question to the relevant section in the founder's article and removing the deletion notice. PaulCHebert (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator has moved the relevant content to a section within the article about the organization's founder. Replacing the article with a redirect to that destination seems like the best possible solution. PaulCHebert (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2018 (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.