Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Association of Indian Students

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. as to whether this can be handled editorially, and no indication further input is forthcoming. No objection to a re-nomination when more input might come. Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North American Association of Indian Students[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Article is basically puffery. A recently (2020) founded organisation that has only garnered brief mentions in local media, usually in relation to their election activism in 2020 and mostly as brief quotes from its staff. Contrary to the requirement of NORG, it has not received significant coverage in independent sources and thus does not seem appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to what user Kashmiri believes is enough references to support an organization doing work. There are ways to change the article if it is 'basically puffery', but to disregard it's 'brief mention in local media' is not fair. I am listing out articles by institutions like The New York Times, Washington Post, India Today, NPR, and many other. There is also frequent broadcast coverage of the work they do. Here are some of the coverage they have on broadcast channels: NDTV,NDTV, Asiaville, CNN News 18, NewsX, News 18. I believe that is enough for significant coverage.

I would like to work with the user to edit the article in a way where it is not a puff piece but informative.

New York Times, Washington Post, Hindustan Times, News 18, PIE News, Vice News, Business Wire, News Minute, The Michigan Daily, Voice of America, Scroll, Inside Higher Ed, India Today, The Indian Express, CNET, and many others that I will not waste your time with. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews with Kaushik about immigration matters are not a coverage of the organisation. Let me quote from WP:NORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. To put it succinctly, there would need to be a number of publications in reliable sources about the organisation. The listed references don't offer that – they only contain a few quotes from Kaushik plus a few video appearances of him. That's not what is meant by significant coverage of an organisation. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage other individuals to please comment on this, as I believe User Kashmiri has an inherent bias (explicitly shown from their username). From the plethora of credible and substantial coverage linked, there aren't just 'a few quotes from Kaushik.' Rather, NAAIS has been instrumental in the past few years on a variety of issues and that deserves the references and coverage they have received. Whether it was COVID relief for students of Indian origin, the Trump administration ban against students, vaccination issues, complexity for international students, fundraising for Oxygen relief within India, an umbrella organization for Indian students, and could keep on naming so many systemic issues that NAAIS has taken to become an organization with a large following + credible work. To suggest to delete and accuse of it as puffery is demeaning to the work.

I respect the work you put in into maintaining Wikipedia, but the work that NAAIS has done is of value and importance for a growing demographic. I request others to also comment. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Wikipedia is not there to list all entities that do "work of value and importance". Our criteria are significantly stricter, as you can read at WP:NORG. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I tend to agree with our Kashmiri user. Bias has nothing to do with it, we're looking at notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable with edits 49.248.235.63 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as per nom, puffery. Oaktree b (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree,

Thank you for your response. I will begin to edit the piece to make it not puffery. My goal is to create information about the work being done. Will make sure to take ou the puffery, but I do believe that 'notable' is not an issue here. As the only organization that has played a huge part in actively organizing for young Indians with quotations to go around, I do believe this is important. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing puffery. Notable organization and worthy if puffery is edited. Rajkumarramana (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2022 (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.