Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The consensus of participants is that sources in the article and in this discussion are sufficient to establish GNG and this article should be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article fails to show how it meets WP:NORG of the four references presented, 1 is a blog and another is the orgs own website. A before search only came up with unreliable sources such as linkedin, youtube and instragam and database sources and non-independent sources. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 01:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Pakistan, India,  and Jammu and Kashmir. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is the major peace foundation funded by the Nobel Peace Prize money awarded the Dalai Lama. Notable per WP:COMMONSENSE, and hopefully additional sources will be added. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOCOMMON. Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are plenty of mentions in books, which are potential sources. Nominator does not appear to have done a search for sources before nominating the article for deletion. Skyerise (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of those book sources are by Rajiv Mehrotra, the secretary of the organisation or the Dalai Lama thus not independent as required for WP:NORG, the rest are either the foundation or its members used as sources (example). Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The foundation has received significant coverage in at least three, independent, reliable sources:, , . - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article using these sources. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot fully review your source 1 and 2 as those books aren't displaying previews for me, however the search inside function is showing for book 1 that the organisations name appears 3 times on unidentified pages and the text that is displaying around said appearances is not helpful in determining whether the text is SIGCOV about the organisaiton or whether this is just mentions. Same thing for source two but with 2 appearances of the organisations name one of which is reference, however the source is used for the criticism and other coverage in the article so may be more in depth then I can tell from what little is viewable by me. Source 3 is the only source I can fully review as it is a journal paper that is free to download. The coverage in source 3 about the foundation is focused on the WISCOMP so would meet SIGCOV. So in total sources 1 and 2 I have not fully reviewed and source 3 is SIGCOV. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was able to access versions through my university. Source 1 has around a page of coverage as part of an encyclopedic listing of various organizations. Source 2 is a book chapter discussing activism by Nobel laureates. The foundation is mentioned in various places. The criticism information I added comes from a section of around 3 pages just on this organization. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage from reliable sources exist. Editorkamran (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have just opened an SPI into two brand new accounts that appeared at the article to remove criticism coverage. Sockpuppet investigations/Peacebuildera. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 14th Dalai Lama. Notability cannot be inherited, and the sources don't even remotely meet the standard for WP:CORP in terms of significant/exclusive coverage of the organization. Steven Walling &bull; talk  01:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This may have been stated by the 14th Dalai Lama, but the work will continue after he's gone. The Carter Center is the closest American parallel that I can think of. It's specific purpose for existence is to advance human rights and alleviate human suffering. After both President Carter and Rosalynn Carter are dead, the Carter Center will carry on with the work they started. The center itself will not lose any notability, because the notability is in the work of the center. The 14th Dalai Lama is likely to be the last Dalai Lama, at least that's what he's said. The work of the Foundation for Universal Responsibility of His Holiness the Dalai Lama will continue with the same name.  — Maile  (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - GNG is met, and the article is notable; I am in favour of keeping the article instead of merging. Ekdalian (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2023 (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.