Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Foundation for the Blind in Thailand


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian Foundation for the Blind in Thailand

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:ORG. 6 gnews hits in 32 years of existence is hardly notable. . LibStar (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: How exactly does the subject fail WP:ORG? To me the Google results demonstrate multiple instances of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. That Google news often lacks older results is no surprise; how many publishers do you expect to run their archives through OCR and post them on-line? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * only 2 of the sources are anything close to indepth, the rest are passing mentions. read the very beginning of WP:ORG. 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.. how is 2 articles significant coverage? this organisation currently exists so it should therefore be able to get signficant coverage if notable. if it closed in 1985 that's a different story. but gnews has many newspapers from 1950 even from 1850. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "the longer an organisation has existed, the more sources are required to prove its notability" is included in the notability criteria. Please correct me if I am wrong, though. Why is two articles insignificant anyway? --Paul_012 (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 sources is not significant coverage. signficant refers to number and depth of coverage. please find additional sources. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about two sources either. What you said was two sources provided near in-depth coverage; plenty of other sources mention the subject in less detail. These Bangkok Post articles directly mention the subject, and these publications and transcripts  should all count as sources, since they were published by independent third parties or presented at international conferences. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * you should have provided these sources in your original vote argument. instead of saying WP:ITSNOTABLE without evidence.LibStar (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * doesn't seem to link to anything and is not third party since it was written by someone from the organisation itself. LibStar (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And you should probably have said how the subject was not notable in your original deletion request. I never said "It's notable". The links I provided were all taken from the Google results included in the discussion header (which I assumed everyone had seen; apologies if I was wrong). And as for your last argument, it's a third-party publication by the FAO. If Jimbo Wales wrote about Wikipedia for Time Magazine, it would be a publication by Time, an independent third-party. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * time magazine is a highly reliable source which would have huge editorial discretion. publishing of conference papers is not as third party as time magazine. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 19:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. References added.Ans-mo (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per improvements made to the article and additional sources found. Brad 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:GHITS. A high number of Google hits does not make an article notable, and a low number does not make it not notable. Ans-mo's observation that Google's lack of hits in a third world nation does not automatically make this article non-notable. The fact that it was founded by a blind man makes it highly notable IMHO. --Morenooso (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "The fact that it was founded by a blind man makes it highly notable". is not a criterion for notability. Please stop inventing criterion for WP:N. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. I am especially impressed by this cite. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the spirit of An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. bit at the top of this AfD is to prevent Wikipedia being flooded by articles on my Auntie May's local Knitting Society? While this organisation's notability - at least as far as the general public is concerned - comes nowhere near that of the UK's RNIB or Spain's ONCE (who?) to professionals working in the field of organisations for the blind, it is sufficiently notable. Regardless of Google hits or write-ups in girlie magazines. --Technopat (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2010 (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.