- 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 no consensus. Please make your cases better. CIte policy. Provide examples. Be clear. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 1M1B (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)
Appears like one of the many organizations recognized by UN. However I find the article to be having notability issues. Inviting your comments. Thewikizoomer (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks like there is significant coverage and proof of notability in the sources used in the article itself, such as the Economic Times, News18, The Hindu, plus the other sources that appear on Google search that are not used on the article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not significant enough, Thewikizoomer (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep No clear deletion rationale presented by the nominator. Broc (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can keep !voters please address whether this org meets WP:NORG, the relevant guideline?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete To start with, User:Broc's 'speedy keep' vote should be discarded for determining consensus as a vague pretension about the nominator's statement and not addressing notability concerns. [1] appears reliable at first glance but is not due to WP:FORBESCON. The Hindu piece cited by the first 'Keep' vote [2] is largely about the hiring of Telanganu innovators to the organisation.
In terms of sources actually in the article, however, I have presented a {{Source assess table}}. I'm admittedly not familiar with Indian sourcing, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA also causes some difficulty in appropriate source analysis of this organisation, so feel free to chip in to anything I might've missed.
| Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 The United Nations is an accreditor of the subject.
|
From my analysis, I do not consider it reliable for this article due to its lack of independence.
|
 The entire article is about the organisation.
|
✘ No | |
| This article by the Deccan Herald does not appear to fall afoul of WP:NEWSORGINDIA.
|
While not listed at WP:RSN, from my analysis, the Deccan Herald is a popular newspaper from the Karnataka area, and should be considered generally reliable.
|
This article is mostly about India's envoy to the UN, but the organisation receives a few paragraphs of the article.
|
✔ Yes | |
| While the article is written in a rather saccharine tone, the source seems independent from the organisation.
|
 The author of the article, Sanchari Pal, seems to be a frequent contributor to The Better India, but I'm not able to find any information at all about him online.
|
The article is mostly about the 14 students going to the UN headquarters and not the organisation itself.
|
✘ No | |
| The Economic Times is independent of the organisation.
|
The Economic Times is the business-oriented wing of the Times of India. Per WP:TOI, the Times has a mixed reliability (somewhere between no consensus and generally unreliable), and I don't see anything indicating why it shouldn't be extended to its business counterpart. |
The article is largely a regurgitation of the Deccan Herald article (I suppose there's not much room for differentiation when reporting on that story), but it does have some paragraphs dedicated to the organisation.
|
? Unknown | |
| News18.com is independent from the organisation.
|
The article is mostly just a quotation of the founder's own words, so is unhelpful for determining notability.
|
Most of the article is dedicated to the subject, aside from a few mentions of Mark Zuckerberg.
|
✘ No | |
| The New Indian Express is independent of the subject.
|
From what I can deduce, the New Indian Express is the southern edition of the Indian Express, which is listed at WP:INDIANEXP as a reliable source. However, I'm not considering it fully reliable because, as with the News18 article, the article is largely quoting off the founder, which obviously decreases its reliability. The article also sounds quite promotional, but that's probably just personal opinion.
|
The article, while short, is dedicated to the subject.
|
? Unknown | |
| ThePrint is independent of the subject.
|
The article has a disclaimer at the botton stating, This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content. |
The organisation is described in a single paragraph, but most of the article is not about the subject.
|
✘ No | |
| Most of the article is paywalled for me, but I assume it is independent based off source 4.
|
See Source 4
|
I am unable to determine SIGCOV because the article is behind a paywall. The article seems to be about the subject, but I can't fully confirm it.
|
? Unknown | |
| Yes
|
The Hindu is considered generally reliable per WP:THEHINDU.
|
A large part of the article is paywalled for me, but there are more than two paragraphs dedicated to the subject, which is more than a trivial mentionas stated in WP:SIGCOV. |
✔ Yes | |
| This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. | ||||
Overall, the organisation seems to fail NORG, but it's very borderline, so I definitely wouldn't be opposed to keeping, especially if some new sources are found. Whoareuagain (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)— Whoareuagain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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.