Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentle Fund Organization


 * 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. Sources were provided, and no other arguments made for over a week. L Faraone  18:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentle Fund Organization

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

fails WP:ORG. whilst coverage verifies its existence it's not indepth. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourcing for Asia-based not-for-profits is always a difficult issue, as their activites may be notable to tens of thousands of people without necessarily receiving media coverage in Western or English-speaking sources (a constant problem arising from LibStar's conscientious and much-needed nominations of many such articles). While Google searches have been unable to yield any significant coverage in reliable English sources, they have yielded such a large quantity of trivial mentions and non-independent sources (including references to a reasonably generous budget) as to convince me that its non-English notability may nevertheless be sufficient to justify an article.  (See WP:BIAS.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * please provide sources then, you are assuming they exist and yet little can be found. this organisation is based in Singapore where English is one of the main languages. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In cases like this the onus is reversed; once a reason is established to suspect that unavailable sources exist, a deletion should only be endorsed after someone has taken reasonable steps to verify such sources DON'T exist, which in this case would amount to an enquiry or search of Singaporean news outlets, which as far as I know aren't indexed on Google. See WP:FAILN. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Your alleged rule is wrong. We don't care if an organization does amazing things for millions of people.  If we can't identify any third-party, independent sources, then we do not keep the article, full stop.  Wikipedia is WP:NOT a promotional opportunity for non-profits, and notability requires verifiable evidence, not merely handwaving and optimistic assertions that surely some sources exist.  If you want this article kept, I suggest that you find a way to produce at least one independent, third-party source.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you're accepting that WP:FAILN is current Wikipedia policy, and that I have presented it correctly, but you're suggesting it should be revised or ignored in this case. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that you've misunderstood FAILN, which says: "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging...[or] deleting."  NB that it says "cannot be found", rather than "cannot be imagined, speculated, or assumed to exist".  The onus is not reversed; if challenged, sources must actually be produced.  Notability requires verifiable evidence (on the same page as FAILN) is very relevant to the situation here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.