Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abinta Kabir Foundation

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.

First of all, while I was pinged to this discussion before and answered the ping, my comment was merely repeating what policy says anyway without any opinion on the subject, so I don't consider myself barred from closing this discussion.

Then: The question of how to handle promotional articles is one that has sparked a lot of discussion with policy both allowing editing and deletion as potential "fixes" depending on the severity of the promotional text. In this case however, a closer look at those who mention WP:PROMO violations reveals that the deciding factor in their !votes was not the promotional language but the lack of notability because of sources that are either about the person the foundation was dedicated to, only mention it in passing or are non-independent (and promotional) in nature. Even if one were to discount the PROMO-arguments, the only keep !voter did not manage to convince the rest of the participants that the sources he mentioned were sufficient to establish notability.

As for Tony's BLP1E analogy, WP:BLP can still apply to "recently" deceased people, at least one year after their death (WP:BDP), although what he probably meant was to apply BIO1E in analogy to the subject at hand. That could also have been a reasonable argument to delete the article if the lack of notability hadn't been enough reason to do so anyway because the spirit of said guideline is after all to avoid creating articles about subjects when the whole coverage is related to a single event.

If someone wants to mention this subject in an "Aftermath" section of July 2016 Dhaka attack and redirect this article to that section, there is no consensus here against that.

Regards So Why 18:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abinta Kabir Foundation[edit]

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

Tragic loss but WP:NOTMEMORIAL ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails "long established" per Wikipedia:NONPROFIT having been inaugurated in March 2017. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that Abinta Kabir Foundation is currently an established NGO that is actively working on a dedicated cause. While it is true that the basis of the foundation is in memory of the late Abinta Kabir, it would be irresponsible to call the Abinta Kabir Foundation a memorial. The Foundation is working on pressing issues, such as acid victims and education, and establishing a very strong role throughout the city.

Furthermore, if you would kindly look into the article, you would see that no personal statements have been made and there each quote was cited by reputed news sources.

Lastly, I would again like to draw your attention to the fact that the article is indeed on Abinta Kabir Foundation and not on the deceased Abinta Kabir herself. If you do have other concerns please do let me know. I do not agree that this could be tagged as a memorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhlet (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A blatantly promotional article from start to finish, clearly intended to impress us with what a worthwhile organisation the foundation is, enough so that in my opinion it could have been speedily deleted as promotional. Many of the references are certainly not independent sources, some of them do not give substantial coverage (e.g. one of them has all of two sentences about the foundation), some of them are clearly promotional in character, some of them are merely reports of transactions. Notability is therefore not demonstrated, but even if someone can provide evidence that there is notability so that we could have an article on the subject, this article is not suitable in view of its promotional nature. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBWatson. Reads like a WP:PROMO violation. At best this article is WP:TOOSOON, as the foundation's only about 4 months old per the article. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abinta Kabir Foundation does meet the notability standards for a non profit organisation. It has had influence nationally and has received international acceptance namely from the US Ambassador to Dhaka. I have also added new references, independent from the organisation, to show that the foundation has had significant coverage. I have removed the money transaction, as I do concede that may have sounded promotional. I have also altered the wording in the Inception and vision segment to better adhere to facts. Please do look into the changes and let me know if there are still any persisting issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhlet (talk • contribs) 09:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is understood that, the foundation can surpass being a memorial and would become notable through its actions. Hell I am sided and biased towards seeing it becoming a very successful and notable organization. However, at present, the foundation is a memorial, in all intent and purpose (which is more than obvious from their website). And, the foundation haven't yet done anything much to warrant an Wikipedia entry. Per this, and per all mentioned above, I posit the article should be deleted. On another note, July 2016 Dhaka attack has quite some aftermath and this subject can be mentioned in that article (may be one sentence). @Nidhlet:, this AfD is not about the quality of the article, but current notability of the subject. --nafSadh did say 14:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have come in later in this conversation. So, it seems the promotional wording has been cleaned up and coverage in independent (reputable) news sources have been provided. I read one article where more than one ambassador from other countries attended an event commemorating this girl and the launch of this NGO. Of course that isn't the only reason for "keep". I think this article satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn not sure if you noticed, but the organization is not even 6 mos. old so it fails notability on those grounds. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I have read and reread the notability criteria, and the focal points are the scope of the foundation and the coverage. Both have been established in the article. Longevity is only part of the additional considerations and furthermore, longevity is a subpart to factors that have attracted widespread attention. Even in that clause, it satisfies size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, as it has been integrated with a gallery established in 2012 and even facilitated University of Dhaka and Acid Survivors Foundation. More importantly, in the same clause, it is clearly stated that This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. I would be grateful if you could consider the points I have raised.

User:Atsme. This topic doesn't fail notability, just because it is less than six months old. The standard for notability (per WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:ORGIND) is receiving notice in publications independent of the organization, which has happened with this organization. Reputable news organizations have covered this topic. This is the main criteria for notability for any topic. Time is not necessarily a factor. Time in existence is only one factor that can be considered as an argument for notability. Also, I am noticing the wording in this article is not promotional. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For what it's worth, in my opinion, articles written like that should qualify for CSD G11, because it would "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". The notability is borderline at best. The coverage is trivial except of the news about the foundation's inauguration, which is a single event. Rentier (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The new insights by Steve Quinn need further investigation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rentier, I would kindly request you to look into the coverage of the Abinta Foundation Schools launched, the inauguration of the Abinta Gallery of Fine Arts with an exhibition, and the Abinta Kabir Cyber Center. Three other major accomplishments, other than the launch itself, have had significant coverage. For a foundation that is 4 months old, that is very significant and therefore, has created a ripple through the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidhlet (talk • contribs) 01:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with User:Rentier that a fundamental rewrite is in order to qualify as encyclopedic. I see this as a fact based, neutrally written article. And, in any case, coverage by sources independent of the subject determines "keep" or "deletion", not so much the wording of the article. Promotional, biased, or non-neutral wording can be fixed. But if the sources don't cover the topic then that cannot be fixed. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are independent sources that cover this topic: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)x3 I was going to respond above but the (edit conflict) threw me so I'll respond here. Steve Quinn, I thought about the various articles that were sourced, too, but when I actually read them, they only had a sentence or two about the foundation (because it is so new they have no track record to establish notability) while the rest of the article was "to commemorate Gulshan victim Abinta Kabir". Notability fails again based on WP:INHERITORG. Perhaps the article should be about Abinta Kabir, rather than the Foundation because it is her tragic death that is being covered and memorialized in the sources which again brings up WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There isn't much an organization can do in 6 mos. to warrant notability - please also see "Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity in WP:NONPROFIT. The bar is also pretty high on what qualifies for notability in the philanthropic and/or nonprofit foundation area. DGG taught me with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_L._Furth, that: "Someone extremely wealthy is usually notable, and there is probably a line beyond which they can be presumed to be notable--a net worth of more than $ several billion might be realistic (5 years ago I might have said $1 billion, but things have changed at that end of the financial spectrum." With his statement in mind, I would think the same would apply to a non-profit foundation. Perhaps in a year or so, the Foundation itself will have achieved notability on its own, rather than as the result of inherited notability over the tragic loss of a sweet life. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the articles only have one or two sentences about this organization. The organization is a significant part of the relevant coverage in the relevant articles. It is covered as much as her death is in several sources. The other sources cover the massacre and one source discusses her attendance at an American University. These are background articles that help the reader. There is no indication that WP:INHERITORG applies and there is not indication that WP:MEMORIAL applies to this article. Bringing into the conversation someone extremely wealthy is usually notable seems to be off-topic here. The only reason such a person would usually be notable is because it is a good bet the reliable sources have covered that person (that topic). Just as reliable sources cover this topic. Also, bringing DGG into the coversation seems to be the logical fallacy of appealing to authority, and also seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. And I am not sure pinging DGG, to alert him to this discussion is appropriate. In fact, it is not appropriate. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have been proper for me to quote another editor without notifying him, and I take issue with your allegations. There is a similarity because regardless of whether it's a person or a non-profit organization it's still about donating time and money. Perhaps instead of picking on editors you should demonstrate exactly what you think the sources say that warrants the foundation's notability.^{Atsme📞📧} 03:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding pinging DGG, please review or see: WP: Vote stacking and WP:Canvassing. No, this is not about donating money. This is about an organization and its coverage. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need vote stack. What's wrong with you? You think DGG is going to partake in that anyway? Seriously? Switch to decaf. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm only one person. That's not canvassing, especially as nobody can really predict how I am going to consider any particular case, whatever I may have said as a general principle, or in a somewhat related situation. In this case, I think there is already some evidece of notability , and I think an article could be written. But this article is not suitable for an encyclopedia -- it's pure advocacy, to the level that had i seen it upon submission,I might have considered G11. This has become a familiar problem here: someone write an advocacy-vased article on a noble cause, and it makes us all fell very uncomfortable at deleting it. But that's the meaning of NPOV: it's easy for us to remove advocacy for something we're indifferent to, but for an encyclopedia to have integrity, we need to remove advocacy irrespective of such considerations. Looking at the article in detail, I see the pervasiveness of emotional language/. "potential" "to make the world a better place" " “I have to say the foundation and everyone who is working for it, ... are very fortunate because Abinta left this amazing road map of what her dreams were and what she wanted to see done," ", the foundation strives to preserve her spirit through their work." the article even summarizes it (using OR, for the phrase in not in the reference): "Respects were paid through emotionally charged speeches". The current article is one of them. Sometimes this is an isolated paragraph and can be fixed, sometimes it compromises the entire article--as here. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know SoWhy's (who is a prolific AfD closer) opinion on this argument in light of his recent statement that promotionalism is not a deletion rationale if the content can be fixed by editing. Rentier (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(pinged) My recent statements on this were merely repeats of our policies: WP:ATD says If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.. WP:WHATISTOBEDONE says if WP:NOT violations are found, Modifying the content of an article (normal editing). should be considered to deal with them. WP:PRESERVE says Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. In cases where most content is promotional in tone or intent, stubifying is an accepted alternative if the subject is notable, since having a stub serves our readers more than not having an article at all (cf. WP:ATD and WP:STUBIFY). A parallel would be the blue pencil doctrine often found in law: If you strike all the promotional parts and a valid stub remains, then editing the article actually fixes the problem. If not, deletion is to be preferred. I have no opinion on this subject at hand though. Regards So Why 14:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's all fine and dandy, but the sources themselves are what establishes the promotional aspects not so much how it's written - it's the overall flavor - so until the foundation itself establishes itself to satisfy N and V applying NPOV it fails. We cannot fix all the reasons this particular article fails N at this point in time. Perhaps in a year or so, maybe. There are a lot of foundations out there in the world - so keep in mind WP:NOT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a new organization there's always some judgment involved here--if the press coverage of even the founding of an organization is sufficiently substantial , it can be possible to write an article. What counts as "sufficiently substantial" in any particular case, can only be interpreted here, at an AfD discussion. Usually it's very clear that there isn't sufficient coverage, but sometimes its borderline, and debatable. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though NOTSPAM is a horrible argument here, in my opinion. I'm probably one of the biggest advocates of invoking it more often, but its clearly fixable in this case if the article was notable. The article is not, however, notable. This is an organization founded in memory of the tragic death of a person that received initial coverage on its founding, but hasn't demonstrated long-term notability. DGG (whom I'm pinging since I'm invoking his analysis) has pointed out that we need to focus at the core of the encyclopedia in deletion discussions, essentially the Five Pillars the first of which being Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the last being Wikipedia has no firm rules. If we look at the principle behind WP:BLP1E, I think we can see it applied here. There is no firm rule on a foundation created as a memorial to a victim's death, but if the victim is not themselves notable and included in the encyclopedia, we can safely say that the memorial foundation that got some press after the tragedy also likely isn't either. Analyzing don't demonstrate long-term notability that we would expect for the victim, nor for the foundation. If there is more coverage in a year or two we can look at creating an article then. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2017 (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.