543:, who is hastily pushing for its deletion, has posted some information regarding this article that are not correct. For example, to quote him, āper discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard it was established that this article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest with the intent to promote the organization.ā I have reviewd the whole discussion & links with neutrality. This mentioned editor has noted āI, Prakashkanth (this is also my real name) ā¦..am actively involved in this organization; but there is absolutely no conflict of interest as all the information added by me are facts, well referenced in this article & objectively verifiable by reliable, secondary sources.ā This is not a proof of conflict of interest, especially when this contributor is not hiding any thing (not even his name!) & has no financial relation with this organization. The only thing is that probably he knows about this organization more than we know & is contributing this information to Knowledge (XXG). For example, as citizen of India, if I contibute to the aricle related to India, it will not automatically prove that I have conflict of interest. In fact majority of the articles in Knowledge (XXG) are contibuted by people who are well familier with those topics. Reviewing all these facts I donāt think that this contibutor has any real conflict of interest.
695:ā This is a tough one, as the article is promotional and there is a COI issue. But the main question as far as deletion is concerned is whether this foundation is notable. Again, it's tough, because the sources are not easily accessible to most of us. And yes, we've been scammed before, but I'd like to assume good faith and not conclude it's a scam until I've seen some evidence. There seems to be this idea on Knowledge (XXG) that a source is not verifiable unless you can bring it up on your computer screen. I'd like to think that libraries and newspapers still have a place in the repository of human knowledge. So I'm going to give considerable weight to Barnabas2009's assertion that these are in fact reliable, verifiable (to him at least), secondary sources. I'd still like to see more confirmation, but until someone shows me evidence that these scans are manipulated, or that the scanned articles are coming from other than mainstream, reliable sources, I'm going to have to say that they do demonstrate notability.
728:. I posted this AfD in the Indian deletion sorting list in the hope that someone who can actually read those articles might provide that identification to help make this a more informed deletion discussion, so I'm not biased against non-English sources. If those articles were online I could use Google Translate or some other software to do the verification. But I can't. Also, we don't even know what these newspapers are in most cases, the reference I linked is referred to in the article as "Hindi newspapers". Imagine if it was a source in English, and the reference in the article was only called "English newspaper". --
551:. If a source is in Hindi it does not make it less reliable! Comments by one editor who seems in very haste to delete this article ( Atama ) is surprizing āā¦scans of newspapers, nobody has yet been able to translate such photos and in the past web sites have been known to alter scanned imagesā¦ā He is stating that nobody can translate & understand Hindi! He is also implying that fraud is involved because he himself can not read Hindi. These statements by this editor questions his intention.
755:- I'll say, also, that among the English language articles being used, the NewsIndiaTimes paper does seem to be a reliable source, a story written in a legitimate magazine by a journalist that significantly covers the organization. The India Tribune "article" is clearly a press release, not a reliable source. One reference alone generally isn't sufficient for establishing notability. More articles like the NewsIndiaTimes article would do it though. --
521:
with this heading ), and this whole fact with its reference was deleted by this editor (later brought back by a contibutor). This seems inapropriate haste in deletion! Similarly he deleted the mention of the fact that more than 300 libraries-community centers are run by this organization! Cameron Scott should have put a ācitation neededā tag & should not have removed these important facts that are some proofs of its notability.
724:, do you see where only small portions of the article are highlighted? That could be due to those portions of the article being particularly significant, but those could also be because those are the only places where the foundation is mentioned. If we can't verify the content of the articles then how can we say that notability is established? Remember, we don't assume a subject is notable until proven otherwise,
517:& I read Hindi newspapers daily. Though I am a fan of Knowledge (XXG), this is my first contribution. I can well remember dozens of third party & reliable references related to this organization. Majority of natives of Bihar (with population of 50 million) are at least familiar with the name of this charity organization. This organization very well meets the notability criteria of Knowledge (XXG).
1013:- the organization is hard to reference by virtue of its location (with language and technological limitations), but that doesn't make it deletion-worthy. Several outside sources are referenced, even though they are hosted on the organization's own website. By my investiagtion, none of those sources have websites of their own that could possibly host the articles otherwise. -
634:- I understand that a clipping is as good as an online source, but I just wanted to point out that we have been "tricked" in the past. Personally, I believe that a charity is far less likely to post altered self-promotional images than a fringe science author who is using Knowledge (XXG) for advertising, but I thought it important to bring up the possibility. --
520:
Also, when I was going through this article I noted that some of important facts (that are supported by reliable, secondary sources) were deleted (why?) by the editor
Cameron Scott. This organization has volunteers more than ten thousand (there is reference to an American newspaper front page article
935:
I have gone through this organization's website. This organization seems quite notable at least in the Bihar region of India. There are clippings of several articles / newses that are from regional & national, reputable Hindi publications. I think Hindi speaking contibutors can improve the list
565:
Knowledge (XXG), though very popular in
English speaking world is rarely used by Hindi speaking peoples. But that does not mean that Hindi or other non-English citations should be disregarded. And, if you search on google (the English language search engine) to find Hindi article you will certainly
604:
A newspaper clipping is still a newspaper clipping even if it's scanned onto the subject's home page. The crux of the matter is that this article will be kept or not based on the quality of the available Hindi sources, as there aren't any
English ones. There's also the matter of all the associated
561:
One of the editor who has written about this article just couple of days ago; -āBut considering how long the article has been around, and how many editors have worked on it, I have the feeling that it would be rejected because the article can be "cleaned up".āāis now suddenly pushing for its
781:
I'm pretty much in agreement with you on those points, I just don't want the article deleted simply because the sources are not all in
English or published in the NYT. I'd very much like to hear more opinion from people who can read the sources and comment on their reliability.
796:
I have a general question. The foundation's web site is showing scans of newspaper and magazine articles, presumably works that have copyrights to them (as published works). I doubt that the organization has received permission to do so. Does linking to such material violate
662:
articles are getting subject to canvassing, meatpuppetry et cetera it's important to remain objective. In this case I think it's a bit less open-and-shut than this AfD appears at first glance. Had I any faith at all in the process in question I'd be tempted to stick a
501:
I am surprised to see that some editors are pushing for a hasty deletion of this article. Before deleting we must do some research to find whether this topic is notable & the information is reliable or not. I have done some research & these are the
160:
215:
notability by showing scans of newspapers, nobody has yet been able to translate such photos and in the past web sites have been known to alter scanned images of publications as evidence of their notability (see
975:
per
SpacemanSpiff. I'm assuming good faith on the scanned articles, and hoping that someday reliable mainstream non-English sources are given as much or more weight than a low number of oft-trivial "G-hits".
546:
3) Reliable, secondary sources: The
English speaking editors of the Knowledge (XXG) should know that majority of people on our planet do not speak english. The mother tongue of about 500 million people is
290:
154:
121:
536:- newspapers, perodicals, magazines etc. As a daily Hindi newspapers reader I could recognise several of them and they are real, reliable & from reputed (Hindi) publications.
558:, though the founders are in USA, and it is also registered in USA. In fact this was very clear in this article till Cameron Scott deleted this basic information, (again, why?).
720:? Even if we assume that the articles are genuine, if they are only bare mentions of the foundation or puff-pieces then they still don't show notability. For example, look at
217:
801:? I don't ask this in an attempt to "shut down" the references, but as a legitimate concern. I'm not an expert on our copyright rules so it may not be a problem. --
254:
618:
Ummm, while I'm at it, while GNews doesn't seem to have anything (possibly because it only searches a finite set of
English sources?), Gsearch itself has a few.
94:
89:
98:
832:
I'm going with keep now for a few reasons (although not a strong keep). This appears to be a contentious AfD, so I'll provide a more elaborate rationale:
81:
524:
I have also visited the website of this organization & found that there are hundreds of reliable, secondary sources (mainly in Indian languages -
914:
A reporter for ref #7 was shot and killed for investigating government corruption, so I'm guessing it's a reliable source, or at least not fluff.
842:
325:
894:
that I found. It's not about the organization, but it goes beyond trivial. Given all this, I think the org passes our notability criteria. -
175:
962:
595:
958:
591:
142:
17:
59:
136:
1022:
1003:
982:
945:
925:
907:
820:
791:
774:
747:
704:
681:
653:
626:
613:
578:
489:
462:
441:
418:
397:
374:
353:
336:
315:
279:
243:
63:
1037:
36:
132:
52:
85:
673:
tag on the article, but sadly that's basically just for articles on
Pokemon or soap opera characters these days.
182:
1036:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
495:
77:
69:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
954:
941:
901:
349:
878:
Ref #11 includes both trivial and non-trivial coverage in newspapers. I can't say which newspapers though.
587:
574:
224:
sources this organization does not merit inclusion (and a number of searches have failed to find any). --
992:
if there is solid documentation for the number of voluneeers, preferably not based on a press release.
915:
862:, I'm unable to find much info about the magazine itself, other than that it's a state wide publication.
678:
623:
610:
554:
After checking the website of this organization I found that this is essentially an Indian organization
479:
950:
937:
798:
583:
570:
148:
566:
find none! I think that editors of
Knowledge (XXG) should not have bias against non-English languages.
667:
471:
458:
168:
725:
895:
891:
841:
Ref #4 is more of a PR exercise in a local Indian-American website, so that's sub-local website (
370:
345:
605:
images: ideally they want to be on
Commons in any case, assuming that we can verify the author.
414:
332:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
406:
200:
192:
1018:
921:
787:
700:
674:
619:
606:
540:
470:
Google did not return sufficient results to prove notability. COI editors/promotional. NN.
450:
427:
362:
196:
815:
769:
742:
648:
430:. No mention in reliable sources, and only sources cited are self promotional references.
389:
310:
274:
238:
835:
Ref #1 shows that the organization is not large enough to have done anything notable yet.
721:
208:
859:
977:
454:
717:
204:
999:
872:
366:
871:
Ref #10 has three different clippings of non-trivial coverage. One of them is from
858:
Ref #7 is coverage regarding a program in a news magazine. The magazine website is
431:
410:
328:
115:
716:- Can you read the scans? Do they cover the subject in a significant manner, per
1014:
917:
783:
696:
199:
with the intent to promote the organization. As to the subject itself, it fails
803:
757:
730:
636:
384:
298:
262:
226:
211:. All references in the article are to the company's web site, and while it
851:
Ref #6 Again press release in a sub-local website. See banner language on
994:
533:
344:
failing some shocking revelation about the sources, fails WP:CORPs. --
195:
it was established that this article was created by an editor with a
882:
855:. Even if it the article isn't a press release, it's clearly not RS.
548:
525:
514:
510:
506:
1030:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
529:
852:
555:
658:
Indeed. And on that same note, it is quite possible that
111:
107:
103:
167:
181:
291:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
382:for the lack of notability and reliable sources.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1040:). No further edits should be made to this page.
885:. IMO, it should be treated as a primary source.
449:: I can't find significant coverage for this
8:
409:, no gnews hits and only ~3000 google hits.
361:No sources apart from own web site. Fails
285:
255:list of India-related deletion discussions
249:
324:blatant self promotion. nothing in gnews
289:: This debate has been included in the
253:: This debate has been included in the
936:of references in this article a lot.--
513:, living in USA. My mother tongue is
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
539:2) Conflict of interest: One editor
193:the conflict of interest noticeboard
494:Some Facts related to the article
24:
875:, a reputable Hindi publication.
505:1) Notability: I am a native of
405:no signs that the charity meets
838:Ref #2 & #3 show existence
675:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
620:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
607:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
220:for a recent example). Absent
1:
1023:00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
1004:23:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
983:20:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
946:12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
926:23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
908:00:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
881:Ref #12 includes clips from
821:23:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
792:22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
775:21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
748:21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
705:20:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
682:18:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
654:18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
627:18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
614:17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
579:17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
490:01:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
463:23:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
442:17:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
419:10:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
398:09:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
375:09:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
354:07:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
337:07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
316:06:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
280:06:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
244:06:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
203:as it does cannot establish
64:11:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
868:Ref #9 same notes as ref #7
1057:
890:In addition, there's also
496:Dr Prabhat Das Foundation
78:Dr Prabhat Das Foundation
70:Dr Prabhat Das Foundation
1033:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
865:Ref #8 Not a reference
843:direct link to article
53:Backslash Forwardslash
963:few or no other edits
892:this from Yahoo! News
596:few or no other edits
965:outside this topic.
848:Ref #5 Press release
598:outside this topic.
197:conflict of interest
726:rather the opposite
191:Per discussion at
44:The result was
966:
599:
488:
318:
294:
282:
258:
1048:
1035:
948:
904:
898:
883:this publication
818:
812:
809:
806:
772:
766:
763:
760:
745:
739:
736:
733:
672:
666:
651:
645:
642:
639:
581:
562:deletion! (why?)
486:
478:
476:
439:
436:
396:
393:
387:
313:
307:
304:
301:
295:
277:
271:
268:
265:
259:
241:
235:
232:
229:
209:reliable sources
186:
185:
171:
119:
101:
34:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1038:deletion review
1031:
902:
896:
816:
810:
807:
804:
770:
764:
761:
758:
743:
737:
734:
731:
670:
664:
649:
643:
640:
637:
480:
472:
437:
432:
391:
385:
383:
311:
305:
302:
299:
275:
269:
266:
263:
239:
233:
230:
227:
128:
92:
76:
73:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1054:
1052:
1043:
1042:
1026:
1025:
1007:
1006:
986:
985:
969:
968:
929:
928:
911:
910:
888:
887:
886:
879:
876:
869:
866:
863:
856:
849:
846:
839:
836:
826:
825:
824:
823:
779:
778:
777:
750:
722:this reference
708:
707:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
602:
601:
600:
567:
563:
559:
552:
544:
537:
522:
518:
503:
492:
465:
444:
426:seems to fail
421:
400:
377:
356:
339:
319:
283:
189:
188:
125:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1053:
1041:
1039:
1034:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
991:
988:
987:
984:
981:
979:
974:
971:
970:
964:
960:
956:
952:
947:
943:
939:
934:
931:
930:
927:
923:
919:
916:
913:
912:
909:
906:
905:
899:
893:
889:
884:
880:
877:
874:
873:Dainik Jagran
870:
867:
864:
861:
857:
854:
850:
847:
844:
840:
837:
834:
833:
831:
828:
827:
822:
819:
814:
813:
800:
795:
794:
793:
789:
785:
780:
776:
773:
768:
767:
754:
751:
749:
746:
741:
740:
727:
723:
719:
715:
712:
711:
710:
709:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
683:
680:
676:
669:
661:
657:
656:
655:
652:
647:
646:
633:
630:
629:
628:
625:
621:
617:
616:
615:
612:
608:
603:
597:
593:
589:
585:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
557:
553:
550:
545:
542:
538:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:
497:
493:
491:
487:
485:
484:
477:
475:
469:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
443:
440:
435:
429:
425:
422:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
401:
399:
395:
388:
381:
378:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
357:
355:
351:
347:
346:Cameron Scott
343:
340:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
322:Strong delete
320:
317:
314:
309:
308:
292:
288:
284:
281:
278:
273:
272:
256:
252:
248:
247:
246:
245:
242:
237:
236:
223:
219:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1032:
1029:
1010:
993:
989:
980:
972:
951:LionTiger999
938:LionTiger999
932:
900:
829:
802:
756:
752:
729:
713:
692:
659:
635:
631:
584:Barnabas2009
571:Barnabas2009
482:
481:
473:
467:
451:organization
446:
433:
423:
402:
379:
358:
341:
321:
297:
286:
261:
250:
225:
221:
212:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
55:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
961:) has made
933:Strong keep
799:WP:COPYLINK
594:) has made
155:free images
502:findings:-
205:notability
990:weak Keep
978:Priyanath
660:even when
455:Joe Chill
959:contribs
897:Spaceman
853:homepage
592:contribs
534:Maithili
474:Netalarm
367:Johnuniq
218:this AfD
122:View log
753:Comment
714:Comment
632:Comment
411:Smartse
407:WP:CORP
329:LibStar
201:WP:CORP
161:WPĀ refs
149:scholar
95:protect
90:history
1015:Draeco
918:Rees11
784:Rees11
697:Rees11
668:rescue
532:&
468:Delete
447:Delete
438:figura
428:WP:ORG
424:Delete
403:Delete
380:Delete
363:WP:ORG
359:Delete
342:Delete
213:claims
133:Google
99:delete
46:delete
1000:talk
903:Spiff
549:Hindi
541:Atama
526:Hindi
515:Hindi
511:India
507:Bihar
386:Salih
207:with
176:JSTOR
137:books
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
1019:talk
1011:Keep
973:Keep
955:talk
942:talk
922:talk
860:here
830:Keep
788:talk
718:WP:N
701:talk
693:Keep
679:talk
624:talk
611:talk
588:talk
575:talk
530:Urdu
483:talk
459:talk
415:talk
392:talk
371:talk
350:talk
333:talk
287:Note
251:Note
222:real
169:FENS
143:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
60:talk
995:DGG
556:NGO
296:--
260:--
183:TWL
120:ā (
1021:)
1002:)
957:ā¢
949:ā
944:)
924:)
808:am
805:At
790:)
762:am
759:At
735:am
732:At
703:)
677:-
671:}}
665:{{
641:am
638:At
622:-
609:-
590:ā¢
582:ā
577:)
569:--
528:,
509:,
498::
461:)
453:.
417:)
373:)
365:.
352:)
335:)
327:.
303:am
300:At
293:.
267:am
264:At
257:.
231:am
228:At
163:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
62:)
48:.
1017:(
998:(
967:}
953:(
940:(
920:(
845:)
817:é
811:a
786:(
771:é
765:a
744:é
738:a
699:(
650:é
644:a
586:(
573:(
457:(
434:B
413:(
394:)
390:(
369:(
348:(
331:(
312:é
306:a
276:é
270:a
240:é
234:a
187:)
179:Ā·
173:Ā·
165:Ā·
158:Ā·
152:Ā·
146:Ā·
140:Ā·
135:(
127:(
124:)
118:)
80:(
58:(
56:/
50:\
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.