Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 25

I would like to understand the closing admin's decision to arrive on "The notability of this organization (per WP:GNG) was not adequately demonstrated. Consensus is to delete." Effectively except for the nominator @331dot: with their crusade of "Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good works", none of the other delete !votes adequately supplied their reasoning with policy/evidence or answered subsequent questions.
The organization "Smile Foundation" has been covered as the main focus of a major research study [1], one of three Indian NGOs to be significantly covered by this Stanford Institute article [2], their website [3] lists 890 print media coverage from 2003 to 15 April 2020 with a couple of hundred other media coverage, Google news lists 230 results [4], their survey numbers in social sector in India is commonly quoted by major Indian media houses [5], [6], top businesses in India routinely partner with this org for their Corporate social responsibility programs [7], [8]. I am pretty new to the project but these should fit pretty well with proving this organization to be notable for having an article here.
For everyone to note: In the AfD itself, there were 10 distinct participants including the nominator. One was blocked for a week for socking and then came back and changed their !vote from keep to delete. Another accused someone of canvassing and voted delete. Another with acknowledged connection to the organization (earlier on their user page) participated and voted keep. Another was questioned by the nominator about their connection with the organization, which they denied and voted keep. Roller26 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on any crusade; I noticed an article that did not meet guidelines, and took action. No more, no less. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delete closure. Closer did an acceptable (or better) job of reading consensus, grounded in policy-based arguments, in a discussion which also had voices misunderstanding our notability guidelines, and quite likely also canvassed and/or having a conflict of interest; there is no reason to overrule their conclusion. A personal note to the proponents of this article: yes, it seems this organization does good work, and it also has quite a number of passing mentions in the press. However, the only source which seems to have come up which is in-depth and possibly independent is the so-called "research report". If you continue to be passionate about making the case this organization should have a wikipedia article, I would suggest you carefully and dispassionately read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, sourcing, and connected contributors, and (if you wish) create a Draft that addresses the reasonable concerns underlying the deletion consensus reached in the AFD. Martinp (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Martinp, your comment contradicts itself and does not make sense. The person closing this was an admin working in the AfD area so they are supposed to be well grounded in notability guidelines. Hence they should not have any issues in separating policy/evidence based discussions from users voting just for the sake cases. Therefore canvassing, COI issues, others not understanding notability has no meaning here. Secondly if you are so convinced based on your research that the topic does not meet notability guidelines and endorse the closing admin in their consensus reaching, then what good is my "carefully and dispassionately reading Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, sourcing, and connected contributors, and (if I wish) create a Draft that addresses the reasonable concerns underlying the deletion consensus reached in the AFD." As the basic thrust of the entire AfD was on the notability of the organization. Not once was the issue of it being a WP:TNT case raised. We already had an article which could be improved upon, no need to create everything from scratch just because a part of it is not to your liking. Also we can have COI editors touch and even actively edit an article without it needing to be deleted. We have to deal with such cases differently and not resort to deleting the article. The article was already semi-protected before getting deleted. In case that does not resolve the issue take it to higher protection, actively watch the page for COI editors, introduce discretionary sanctions or some other measures. Roller26 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26, I believe the closer did a good job reading the discussion in the AFD, and gave appropriate weight to the arguments provided. However, sometimes people passionately involved with an article/organization end up torpedoing it in an AFD by focusing on press mentions rather than the "substantial" and/or "independent" requirements. It is possible -- though I think unlikely -- that enough sustantial, reliable, independent sources *could* be found, just were not found (or were lost in the noise) of the AFD. In such an instance, someone writing a Draft, revising it with feedback, and then presenting it as move to mainspace, might work. Though many people who try this route learn during the process that their read of what sourcing is needed was off the mark, and that the sources needed are actually not available and notability requirements are indeed not met. Hence my recommendation. My apologies for expressing it with a generic kind of "you"; I read the AFD and the nomination above, but have made no attempt to actually understand who said what and when. So I didn't mean to suggest you specifically should be reading up on guidelines. Just that I saw enough of the type of unbridled "why do we have to jump through so many hoops to get an article into wikipedia on such a [to the writer] great organization" passion, combined with the frequent confusion between "passing mention" and "in-depth coverage", in the discussion that it seemed useful advice. Martinp (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin - WP:GNG requires topics to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (note that "sources" is plural, meaning more than one). No keep voter sufficiently demonstrated that this topic meets the GNG guideline. The COI/SPA/canvassing issues with this AfD were relatively minor, and only reinforced the consensus to delete. Happy to restore this page to the Draft namespace if anyone wants to continue working on it and searching for sources that might push it closer to meeting GNG. ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 19:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why this close is right is because the community invariably rejects sources of this quality. And the reason why it's wrong is that if the Smile Foundation were an American or European organisation of similar size, significance and purpose, it would have an article on en.wiki. In my experience, most mainstream Indian sources—about many subjects, not just this one—look like the ones the community rejected here, and this creates systemic bias on en.wiki against India, as well as most of East Asia apart from Japan. I want there to be an article here. But Wikipedia articles have to be a summary of what the reliable sources say, and if you summarize what the reliable sources say about the Smile Foundation, you don't get an article. You get a paragraph.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There are three distinct related questions being considered:
- - Does the subject organization satisfy organizational notability?
  - Does the article establish that the subject organization satisfies organizational notability?
  - Did the closer correctly evaluate the arguments as to organizational notability, and any other arguments?

The appellant is arguing the first point, but the first point is not directly at issue. Only the third point is critical. An answer to the second question can be answered if the article is temporarily undeleted for re-review by the participants in this DRV. However, temporarily undeleting the article is not necessary. I will concede that the organization almost certainly satisfies organizational notability. The closer correctly evaluated the arguments. It does not matter much why the arguments for deletion were stronger, whether the article does not adequately describe the organization, or whether the arguments did not properly describe the article. The close should be endorsed, and the appellant should be encouraged to write a better article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't always agree with you Robert, but I generally find your arguments to be solid. Here I do not. Our inclusion guidelines largely do not care about sources in the article, they care about the sources that exist (WP:TNT not withstanding, an argument no one claimed applied here). WP:ARTN and WP:RUBBISH makes that clear. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

overturn to NC Numerically the discussion is no consensus. I'd have rated the keep arguments as stronger given that high-quality sources, including academic ones, were provided and not rebutted. I don't see how to get to delete from that discussion. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit Which "high quality" sources were provided? One academic study was offered, and it wasn't clear how that established notability- leaving aside that multiple sources are needed. 331dot (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Consensus that the ex-charity (government ex charity??) is not notable, noting “keep” !voters did not point to qualifying sources. My own searching suggests to me that this topic is defunct, never was Wikipedia-notable, and has even less prospect of becoming notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close While this could have been closed as no consensus, a Delete close was within the reasonable range of results. But there is and should be no bar to a new article about this topic, with better sources, if such can be found. Therefore allow recreation. Moreover, on request, allow the restoration of the deleted version in draft as a starting point. SmokeyJoe consensus, insofar as there was one, was that notability has not been demonstrated. No one mentioned checking Hindi-language sources, or other non-English-language sources. No one claimed to have checked all the hundreds of sources listed on the organization's web site. I see no consensus that GNG-qualifing sources do not exist, and a rather comprehensive multi-language search would be needed to establish that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fans

Article page is salted due to inappropriate recreation attempts however as page ultras show there are currently precedents for this form of article for supporter clubs and it is unclear to me that the draft article should be salted which is the point at issue here. to quote the closer from their talk page (which I visited for another matter): "Please take this request to WP:DRV". I note the MFD nom. claim's that this can never be an article because of previous deletion discussions" is a WP:CRYSTAL extrapolation for a current entity is problematic. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This title really never can be an article until such time as GNG-meeting sources are provided - unless you care to provide some? - and the history of recreations is more than sufficient to blacklist the title. (Just salting is kind of futile, though; the people gaming this will just game it at another similar title, and we'll eventually have to find and summarily delete that, too.) Endorse. —Cryptic 02:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The recommendation from the previous AFDs and MFDs was to have the section grow in the main article with appropriate weight and then if it was big or notable enough for its own article to issue a split request. So far efforts to do so have been no good: either too much trivial detail or references were added and thus immediately reverted, multiple drafts with spelling or phrasing variants were introduced to game the system, or no decent effort has been done to beef up the main article section with quality sources. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 02:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Obviously I should clarify my comment. Maybe I have should have said not within six months. What I meant is that it was futile to keep the draft in draft space, when the purpose of draft space is the incubation of articles, and the community had already decided that the fan group was not notable. Does the appellant have a draft in user space that they want reviewed, or does the appellant simply want the title unsalted, and, if so, why? To address User:Cryptic, what the salting gains is that an AFC reviewer, on reading a draft that they think deserves a detailed review, will normally move it to its proper title in draft space, or, rather, attempt to move it, and be blocked by the salting, and then look up the history and Reject the draft. I didn't request the salting. I will !vote within 72 hours or so. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (and I am short of time on this): Per Category:Association football supporters' associations there seems to be an acceptance that articles on a supporter can be notable. While previous MFD/AFD have not demonstrated this group to be notable that may be because it is not notable or because suitable sources have not been found (and some may be Malayalam) and we may be WP:TOOSOON as it would seem to me highly probable the supporters association would become notable in time, though that is WP:CRSYTAL; and we should not be preventing some people from collaborating creating or expanding an article on the subject. The recommendation to expand Kerala Blasters FC#Support might immediately result in WP:UNDUE weight and unbalance in that article. In the midst of Shahoodu, who disappointingly has not yet commented here giving his comments on the closers' tlak page, has I believe a draft at Old revision of User:Shahoodu/sandbox, the quality or otherwise of which I have no examination of whatsoever. In all events the closer said take to DRV; which is what Shahoodu wanted. It may or may not be Shahoodu has or has not been disruptive, but that should not block others from developing an article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse salt. The decision has been made, repeatedly. Personally, I would invite User:Scottywong to instead make it a protected redirect to Kerala Blasters FC. That matches the mainspace title, and better instructs any future attempt to draft the same thing again. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another case of a draftspace WP:UNDUE spinout. Relevant content belongs at Kerala Blasters FC#Support, and IF it qualifies for a WP:SPINOUT, get consensus at Talk:Kerala Blasters FC. Draftspace is not well used for creating narrow scope spinoffs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation . I discussed this matter with User:DESiegel and he reviewed the new structure of this article and commented as not as good as I had hoped ,not as bad as I had feared.Please go through https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DESiegel#Request. The fan club was not notable at that time and got deleted two times for disruptive editing.But that doesnt mean it cannot pass WP:GNG ever.Shahoodu (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure whether this is an appeal of the salting in article space or in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern on raising the DRV was the salting of draft space, no objection to salting of mainspace. In principle the best way to determine if a spin off article is viable is to BOLDly create it and see how it looks than discuss it first on a talk page. As a general principle centralised draft space is more suitable for collaberation and avoidance of CFORKs and attribution issues compared to userspace. If people are disruptively flinging stuff at e.g. AfC or placing in mainspace then there is Ds/alerts and other sanctions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While userspace is most definitely worse, draftspace is not a good place to do spinouts, not without explicit discussion, preferably consensus, on the article talk page. The article talk page has a few old posts about supporters, but overall it is decidedly lacking in explicit collaboration. Draftspace makes collaboration harder, and hides the forking from mainspace editors. The deletion of the fork was a clear message, drafting the same fork is ignoring the decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse salting in article space. It can be assumed that allowing creation in article space would result in another deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse of salting in draft space. Less than three months have elapsed since the last draft had to be deleted due to persistent re-creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation: Like shahoodu said, the article was not notable at that time.I also went through his sanbox and found it does pass wp:gng in the current circumstances because 3 years has passed since its second deletion.So the article must be recreated as it has enough reliable sources now.(WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 06:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

What are you talking about 3 years? There have been multiple drafts that were resubmitted this year under name variants that have resulted in the salting, and the main article's section has still not been improved. This one under this name was repeatedly submitted in June/July 2020. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we have a temp undelete of Draft:Manjappada Kerala Blasters Fans so muggles like me can have some clue on a gap analysis between shahoodu's sandbox and the previous deleted draft. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous articles were bad, poorly sourced. Saw citations at DESiegel's talkpage, if written in a well manner, with those citations and others RS, it can be notable. Maybe allow creation this time... ❯❯❯ S A H A 08:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those citations? We need the WP:THREE best sources, ones that for sure would meet WP:GNG. That's never happened with the drafts submitted over and over this year. Instead we keep getting trivial mentions and routine news coverage. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The major four sources in the new structure of the article.

https://www.goal.com/en-in/news/kerala-blasters-manjappada-fan-club-of-the-year-indian/1j12lxkowhu2h1x76yen2gkaoo

https://www.theweek.in/news/sports/2018/12/05/Kerala-Blasters-fan-group-Manjappada-ends-boycott.amp.html
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2017/nov/17/yellow-army-kerala-blasters-12th-man-1703163.amp (please note yellow army is the english translation of manjappada.)
https://scroll.in/field/966863/indian-football-meet-manjappada-the-12th-man-of-kerala-blasters-and-isl-s-biggest-fan-group

Please go through this User:AngusWOOF.Shahoodu (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:AngusWOOF, please go to th link I attached in my first comment There, User:DESiegel prepared a source assessment table and as per that THE WEEK and INDIAN EXPRESS is reliable source and it has a significant coverage about the organisation.Please go through that assesement table Shahoodu (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my feedback:

1. Goal.com - this is a routine news announcement - they won some award - that doesn't provide significant coverage of the group
2. The Week - also just a news announcement that they ended a boycott
3. New Indian Express - some coverage of the group; not clear if this is significant; sounds like it's a press release profile
4. scroll.in - this one's got signficant coverage; can you find another one like this?

AFC and DRV reviewers, what do you think? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation I think that salting in draft space is generally a very poor idea. I was presented with , if I mam not mistaken, the same four soures and analyzed them at User talk:DESiegel#Request, as mentioned above. I thought and think that the coverage in The week was significant. Specifically I said: Significant event, shows influence of fan organization as well as its size and that the piece in New Indian Express was also, about that i said Major article about history of fan org and its current status and influence. I agreed that the Goal article was not significant coverage. About the significence of the scroll.in piece i wrote: Also covers history and current state of fan organization in considerable detail. I stand by those assesments as my view here. I think these should be sufficient sources to allow what seems to be a rather large and active organization to have a draft, and to be considered for mainspace after further development and perhaps additional high-quality sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESiegel by recreation you mean the draft or the mainspace article? Is it ready for mainspace?

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF I evaluated only the sources linked above, I did not see a draft based on those sources. Thus I am suggesting that draftspace be unsalted, and recreation as a draft be allowed. Then, that draft can be evaluated and perhaps further improved to judge whether it is then ready for mainspace. I am not advocating recreation in mainspace or mainspace unsalting at this time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important point that was not considered If we consider the first and second deletion of Manjappada , it was basically for not having significant coverage and were not properly structured. And the latest article created was atleast four times the size of the 2016-2018 article. Its well structured than before and had coverage in Times of India ,The week, The News Minute, Asianet News, Goal.com Sportskeeda, Khel now ,The bridge, New Indian Express, Scroll. Majority of them are the most reliable source in India.Still it got speedily deleted by without going for any deltion review this time.The admin involved here did not notice this Shahoodu (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the newer articles were deleted because of the tendentious resubmitting of crap that did not show GNG or any of the stuff that you are NOW presenting. The sources presented were trivial / routine coverage along the lines of Goal.com and because there weren't just WP:THREE, AFC reviewers have been fed up with it. And it still doesn't show how it needs a separate page from the section. So focus on the three and when AFC and DRV folks are good with that. Also, since you have COI, it's even more important to have those secondary sources to support the bulk of the writing. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I urge, Shahoodu that you not attempt to argue the merits of previous deletions, but only whether the sources now presented justify a draft now. If you have one or two additional sources at least as good as those four, you might post links here, but a boatload of sources will probably put off the commentators here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]