Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advancing Science Worldwide


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Advancing Science Worldwide

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe this charity meets WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, not too surprising really as it was only founded in April this year. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup charity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * From my humble perspective, the account that created this article, does not look like a single-purpose account. But then again, I am a new user, so please take my advice with the appropriate significance.–——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As I have said in response to Alpha3031, the organization does meet the criteria in WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH.Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally would disagree with Cwmhiraeth's comment. My opinions should be further down.Parmaparma (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am the creator of the article. I do not have any conflicts of interest. I have a job as a systems analyst for a Fortune 500 company in Arizona. My intention was not to create a free ad for this charity. I have recently joined some service/volunteering organizations, including the Kiwanis Club, and I have had volunteering experience with many notable nonprofit organizations in my area. I saw that most of them are not listed on Wikpedia so I just wanted to create articles for them so I can improve Wikipedia. I am also working on an article for another organization in my state, the Womens Economic Institute. My account is not for the single purpose of creating this article. Please do not delete this. Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . Articles on the English Wikipedia have to meet very strict content criteria for inclusion, namely they must have substantial coverage, in multiple independent, reliable sources. This usually means an article or several paragraphs (Or a segment lasting a few minutes for broadcast media) in major news organizations like the New York Times or BBC News. This is necessary to meet our verifiability standards&mdash;any major claim must be backed up by a reliable source, so if you have no reliable sources, you don't really have an article. This also means that your own experiences while volunteering for these organizations isn't sufficient, since you aren't considered an independent publisher with known editorial standards. This has no exceptions for charitable organizations, and Wikipedia is not for giving these organizations publicity, even if that would be nice. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and to do so it is very selective. If you want to write about these organizations, consider starting a blog&mdash;there are many places that allow anyone to start a free blog. But, unfortunately, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and therefore, on Wikipedia at least, it must be deleted, though if it receives independent coverage in the future, it will likely be reconsidered for inclusion.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hello . Advancing Science Worldwide has a lot written about them on their GuideStar page available here. GuideStar, an independent organization holding charities accountable, has written a lot about Advancing Science Worldwide, including their programs, leaders, board of directors, and board leadership and oversight practices. Although GuideStar is usually considered a simple listing which usually is not acceptable on Wikipedia, GuideStar only writes so much for few organizations. That is why I think that source is acceptable. Most nonprofit organizations (many of which are listed on Wikipedia), such as the      National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (Guidestar page available here)  or the      William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (GuideStar page available here) do not have such detailed articles about them on GuideStar. I understand that the Arizona Corporation Commission source may not be that great but even the source from the IRS is more detailed and has more written about this organization than normally written about nonprofit organizations. That is why I think that these sources do qualify as acceptable by Wikipedia. Even though they are normally treated as a simple directory type listing, in this case, these sources have a lot more than normal written about this organization.———Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Above comment was made by the main account of Sockpuppet investigations/Yoyowhatsup2 who created the article. Excelse (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. –——– Pandhi4839 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that these sources fit the criteria in WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Some of the examples given as what qualifies as "substantial coverage" are "an encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization" and "a report by a consumer watchdog organizations on the safety of a specific product". Several of the sources are very similar to this, such as the GuideStar article I mentioned above. A couple of the other references, such as the Charity Navigator article or the Fiscal Sponsor Directory article fit this criteria as well. Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this point. I do not think the article should be deleted. When we first glance at the article or the sources, we may think it should be deleted. However, when I thoroughly read the sources, I think that this organization fits Wikipedia's criteria.–——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion would most closely agree with this comment.Parmaparma (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think this article meets the guidelines as said. Although most of the sources may first seem like directories, they have significant detail for Advancing Science Worldwide that they do not have for most other nonprofit organizations. I would say that this organization is notable.–——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC) — Pandhi4839 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note - This account is 10 minutes old. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello FlightTime. I created a Wikpedia account today and as I was learning about the process of editing and creating articles, I came across the topic of deletion. I somehow ended up on a list of articles being considered for deletion and decided to weigh in on this article. If that is not allowed for a new user like me, I can delete my comment if you would like. Sorry if I am doing something wrong.–——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, your comment is fine, actually the note is not meant for you. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok then. Thank you. –——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say that the article is notable and the sources cited demonstrate that. Several of the sources have detailed articles about Advancing Science Worldwide. As I have said in response to Alpha3031, the article meets the criteria for WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH.Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Sources are primary or otherwise not significant in-depth coverage. MB 21:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello MB. Although some of the sources are not in-depth, there are definitely several in-depth ones referenced, such as the GuideStar article or the Fiscal Sponsor Directory article. As I have said in response to Alpha3031, several of the sources fit the criteria in WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How many time are these people going to !vote ? -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . Sorry about that. I am new to the deletion process and Wikipedia does not explain the voting very well. In fact, they simply say that voting is discouraged and do not explain proper formatting for it. Sorry about that. I have since removed the extra bold "keeps".Yoyowhatsup2 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are primary. They are all secondary sources and as said, I think that they all fit the criteria that you say they don't (WP:GNG and WP:NORG).–——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep - The article meets the criteria for WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH because most of the sources cited meet the criteria for significance. Parmaparma (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC) — Parmaparma (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Another new account. Can you spell SOCKS ? :P -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello FlightTime. I am a human. Here you go: SOCKS. Even though my account is new, I have been editing Wikipedia for a couple years now. I just never saw the need to create an account (since you don't need one to edit many articles) but recently I have become interested in weighing in on ongoing deletion debates and usually it is preferred that one has an account to participate in these. Also, in order to create one of these Articles for Deletion (as I have with the Applied Science University in Bahrain), an account is required. That is why I created this account recently. I am not a bot or fake account of any kind. I am sorry if there are any misunderstandings.Parmaparma (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I would most agree with Yoyowhatsup2's comment in response to Alpha3031.Parmaparma (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: From what I can see, all of the citations mentioned look like comprehensive directory listings. Even if they have more content than the other listings, that isn't really sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some of the examples given on WP:ORG as what constitutes substantial coverage are "An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization" or "A report by a consumer watchdog organizations on the safety of a specific product". The GuideStar articles, Fiscal Sponsor Directory article, VolunteerMatch article, and some others are more similar to this than the "simple listings or compilations" that WP:ORG describes as trivial coverage. Many sources tell a good history of the organization like an encyclopedia and the GuideStar article incorporates elements of both examples. Some of the sources are closer to the trivial coverage but several of the sources do qualify as substantial coverage given the examples in WP:ORG. That is why I think that the article satisfies the notability guidelines in WP:ORG.Parmaparma (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said a couple of comments above (in response to FlightTime), I think that when we thoroughly read the sources, we can see that several of them meet the requirements.–——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That's fair, but given that pretty much any organisation of a category would be listed on the mentioned sources, I don't believe that its sufficient to assert notability. You do make reasonable points though, and I would appreciate further comments from other editors more familiar with these types of sources.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Nomonator comment Just pointing out that user Parmaparma and user Pandhi4839 are both apparently new editors whose first edits were on August 19th and whose edits are almost exclusively in connection with this AfD. Parmaparma nominated Applied Science University (Bahrain) for deletion at 23.10, half an hour after his first edit. Meanwhile user Pandhi4839 added a correctly formatted reference to the article Advancing Science Worldwide with the edit summary "Added extra source. I am a new user so please tell me if I did anything wrong.)" Nor is user Yoyowhatsup2 quite the naive new editor he claims to be, closing several AfDs as "keep" earlier today. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yoyowhatsup2, Pandhi4839, and Parmaparma are ✅ socks. See Sockpuppet investigations/Yoyowhatsup2.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.