Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for International Study and Development

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. --MelanieN (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Center for International Study and Development

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

Non-notable organization. No indications of any significant coverage of this organization in any reliable sources. Various online charity monitors list it as a small organization with an annual budget of under $50,000 annually, so it is unlikely to make the kind of impact that would lead to significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This organization currently serves several hundred students who would otherwise have no access to education. "Non-notability" is not relevant to this Page, as it is notable to the region it serves abroad. As a fairly new organization, CISD has garnered little press coverage under its current name, but the organization it was formerly known as has been mentioned by numerous reputable sources, such as the World Health Organization, as can be seen on the page.

~~http://www.who.int/hac/pakistan_earthquake%20sitrp3_13nov08.pdf~~

~~HakimSaid (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC) HakimSaid — HakimSaid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, also written pretty promotionally, against WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dan61- honestly it just seems like you are trolling. I have reviewed your article on the film "cloud" which has little sources (that are not significant) as listed, no importance or notability. This film has little potential to impact or be seen. What you claim about that other page can be said about yours. or in your words, "so it is unlikely to make the kind of impact that would lead to significant coverage." I hope I do not offend but I am very confused.

~~google search: [1]~~

~~wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clouds_(film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaines (talk • contribs) 19:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)~~

~~Sagaines (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)— Sagaines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

as well as you have supported similar articles in the past that are a small time business with little significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beulah_London Sagaines (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)sgaines— Sagaines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Joseph2302 - I dont see how it is promotional. Sagaines (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)sgaines— Sagaines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

It doesn't impart any information, instead it just tells you about every product/service they have. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is generally what companies, business, and organizations are written about. They are their products and services. The information written isnt biased in any way. If i compare it to the Clinton foundation's page the only difference is the Clinton foundation has sections on history and past contributors. (so therefore the article should just be edited). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaines (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Sagaines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's how companies write about themselves, but that is not an acceptable tone for a Wikipedia article, as it is inherently promotional, not WP:NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But then if you really believe that then there are thousands of other pages you believe need to be contested. What an organization or business sells or provides in terms of services and programs is what they do. and is fact. promoting would take on a more biased tone. If you think the page is lacking some information then suggest it as I have about contributors and history. dont just police and monitor. They are not trying to sell anything for their own gain, its a non-profit! they help people. lets help them help people. we want to improve the world not make it worse. Sagaines (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)sagaines[reply]

Comment @HakimSaid: Serving "several hundred students" is laudable but it is not notable. Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (that apply to all topics, non-profit organizations included) require significant coverage in independent media, of which I find none for CISD. If you are going to rely on coverage of the former name of the organization, it might be of use to editors if you mentioned the name. The current article does not name it, and your own organization's website contains only a minor obscure reference to the organization named Pen Foundation International (who is named as an "international partner" but whom I presume to be the former organization). That being the case, I found precious little reliable information about PFI either. @Sagaines: Please remember to assume good faith: I am not trolling, but rather raising a concern about an article that I do not believe merits inclusion in Wikipedia. The notability of the articles to which I have contributed is irrelevant; the present article will be evaluated on its own merits, not in comparison to other articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sagaines: "Let's help them help people" -- that sounds a lot like "Let's promote them", and that's not what Wikipedia does. Not for for-profit companies, and not for non-profits. CISD's mission is laudable, but Wikipedia isn't the soapbox form which they should spread the word. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

im saying you(dan61) have saved a page before so why don't you try to be productive and help them improve it, instead of just negatively commenting. they are harmless, you aren't actually gaining anything from deleting them. I am not saying lets promote them. this is hardly a promotion. I keep bringing up the relevance of other pages because unfortunetly that is the standard not the rules. and unfortunately then there are thousands of articles "promoting" themselves as you say. Im not saying lets help them promote themselves, im saying show some humanity and be constructive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaines (talk • contribs)

Comment @Sagaines: I've improved articles in the past where there was source material available to do so. Here, there is none. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you all bring up great points. I think it would be really helpful if they did add a history section. It's a new non-profit so I think there's a lot of room to grow. I think we should give them a chance. Jlin09 (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)jlin09 — Jlin09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Taking all this into account, I'm working on adding some more encyclopedic information to subsidize the info about the orgs projects, e.g. a history per @Sagaines' suggestion. Also putting together some news sources on the site. Thanks for the constructive criticism, its my first article HakimSaid (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)HakimSaid [reply]

Comment Taking into account that the organization lists its Executive Director as Hakim Said, I think we have to assume a conflict of interest here. That doesn't outright preclude useful contributions, but it does weigh against the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is a legitimate concern that there may be a conflict of interest, the language and prose do not seem to indicate bias Jlin09 (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)jlin09 — Jlin09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This is a discussion, not a vote. Seems very suspicious that so many new accounts have decided to defends this, opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HakimSaid. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CAWRI-CISD`/Archive, all the above SPAs were confirmed as sockpuppets, so I've struck their comments. This now leaves the discussion with me and @WikiDan61: supporting delete, and no other legitimate comments. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply with the search "Center for International Study and Development NGO" (also adding "Washington") I found nothing aside from results for other organizations. Compare the current information and the current sources, there's no notabiility or potential improvement here thus unacceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 16:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's promotional spam. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2015 (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.