Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Care for Humanity

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. T. Canens (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We Care for Humanity

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

Part of a promotional walled garden. Lacks depth of coverage in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources is non reliable sources, passing mentions and PR driven puff. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have removed CNN iReport and added some more reliable sources which are in Arabic and Bengali. The services of WCH are mostly towards India, Malaysia, The Philippines and other Asian and African countries, I don't think so the coverage in native languages could be brought here to support the subject's notability. And it is very difficult to guess whether those regional native publications are online presence; though if they are, it is very difficult to google them for others who don't know those languages.Kailasher (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC) — Kailasher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note on SPA: I have created Campa Cola Compound Case and Saraswati Mandir High School.Kailasher (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"support her notability" It's not her notability that is in question. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, corrected.Kailasher (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't change your comments like that when someone has responded to them. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think so, I have thanked you after the correction.Kailasher (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is intended is that an editor leave the original, use a <s>~~strikethrough~~</s>, and then include the correction. That way the conversation does not confuse others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is the original version;

*Keep. I have removed CNN iReport and added some more reliable sources which are in Arabic and Bengali. Her works are mostly in India, Malaysia, The Philippines and other Asian and African countries, I don't think so the coverage in native languages could be brought here to support her notability. And it is very difficult to guess whether those regional native publications are online presence; though if they are, it is very difficult to google them for others who don't know those languages.Kailasher (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michael.Kailasher (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note. It appears the topic has coverage and note enough to meet WP:ORG. The article could benefit from some calming of tone, but an addressable issue is not a cause for deletion, nor are WP:NONENG sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make a note saying just he opposite, adding that there appears to be no notability at all separate from that of Maria Amor Torres. --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate your factors, then we know where we stand.Kailasher (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No sources meet WP:N for this article, nor the award article. The only notability seems to come from that of Torres. --Ronz (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael has already responded above.Kailasher (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking about the organization in a more-than-trivial manner, we have Borneo Post 1, Bangalore Tribune, Arab New, 24 Hours Vancouver, Newsfirst, The Star, Borneo Post 2, The Nation, and others. We do not need hundreds of sources to show notability, and the organization does not have the sole subject spoken of in available sources for WP:ORG#Primary criteria to be met. It serves the project and its readers that it be discussed herein. It can remain and grow over time and through regular editing. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We only need one that clearly meets WP:N. What I'm seeing is "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." and none separate from Torres. Am I missing something? --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really Schmidt? Did you even look at the sites you're linking? Article "By WE CAREFOR HUMANITY (WCH)". A quote from her. An unrelated article. Passing mentions and trivial coverage. PR rehashes. Whole thing seems a bit iffy. A charity who's prime purpose seems to be to hold lavish dinners to give "awards" to rich people. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But sources say they use the award ceremony part and parcel of their fund raising campaign for various of their humanitarian projects. Allegations are there everywhere, please read Nobel Prize controversies.Kailasher (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Schmidt. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MichaelQSchmidt and passes WP:GNG.122.174.55.241 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) — 122.174.55.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete Sources are simply public relations pieces. Notability not met. WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS violation. Redirect to Torres' article if it passes AfD. --Ronz (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please rather than repeatedly making your claims of reliable sources into press releases, you instead take the authored article to WP:RSN to let other wiser heads offer their inputs.Kailasher (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:FOC. If you're not interested in addressing the WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO problems, leave them to those who will. --Ronz (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. I have just deleted the article on the founder as a promotional copyvio; this article shows no in-depth coverage of the organization to suggest it passes GNG--the mentions are just that, mentions. It's all trivial and promotional, more a vanity club than anything else. Putting a princessal stamp on it doesn't make that any different. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has the exact same 12 sources refbombed at the GOD awards. Looks like fake source WP:PROMO Kraxler (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors voting for delete. Purely a promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, sources are not good. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:31, 26 August 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.