Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Chandramauli Charitable Trust


 * 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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

International Chandramauli Charitable Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. The only reference that's not self-sourced, BBC News, is about a woman running a marathon, and it only mentions the ICC Trust in passing. The other two references are a representative of the Trust speaking on Youtube, and a paid WordPress promotional press release (SynapseIndia). Using Youtube and Wordpress as "sources" is a good indication that no actual third-party sources exist, and sure enough, Google finds nothing. I prodded this article and the prod was removed by an experienced editor (User:AusLondonder) with the edit summary "Borderline case. Times of India coverage found as well." I have inquired what that coverage was, as I can't find it, but the user has not edited since removing the prod and so has not replied. It's concerning to me firstly that this "Times of India coverage" is unspecified — the user didn't add the reference and I can't find it — and secondly that the Times of India is in any case not much of a reliable source for notability nowadays. Compare this comment on another AfD by DGG who is highly experienced in these matters. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC). Bishonen &#124; talk 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding: The article Shamit Khemka, about an entrepreneur connected with the ICC Trust, written by the same SPA (Mridusinha) is also currently at AfD: Articles for deletion/Shamit Khemka. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Delete as non-notable company. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. When an article has to rely on such incidental mentions as that " Tara Twyman, from Uckfield in East Sussex, is aiming to raise £5,000 for the International Chandramauli Trust" it can safely be assumed to be non-notable  (That, btw, is a mention in a BBC story about a local women running a marathon, not an Indian newspaper, but that does make it a more substantial source for information about the trust (nor for an article about the person--all news sources publish trivial human interest stories).
 * Incidentally, I would not say that the Times of India is altogether useless for notability in everything: -in the previous AfD mentioned I said that I and other editors working with topics in the arts & business  have come to think coverage by that (and other Indian newspapers) as worthless for notability "in the arts and applied arts and probably business also. -- I no longer regard coverage by them as proof of anything but that the person has a press agent." In other fields, I have less experience with that source, and do not want to judge.  DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I have now replied to the nominators message at my talkpage. I removed the PROD as I don't believe this is a clear-cut, uncontroversial deletion. The source from the Times of India is here. There is also this. Regarding the reliability of the Times of India, if any editor believe that newspaper is not reliable in any circumstance I think they should raise a broad discussion at WP:RSN. I would strongly and completely dispute that characterisation of the Times. I also question whether any searches have been conducted in other Indian languages, especially Hindi? AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An interview with Shamit Khemka (a promotional bio currently on AfD) is far from being an independent source that confirms notability. Khemka is the CEO of SynapseIndia, which is closely connected with International Chandramauli Charitable Trust. As for the mention in TI, it's this sentence in a longish feature about an International Yoga Day celebration: Several vedic students of International Chandramauli Charitable Trust, under supervision of English woman, H Lucy Guest and trustee of the trust, Devatma Dubey performed over 20 asanas at the Ghat. I don't regard that as significant independent coverage or recognition; it's a mention in passing, just like the BBC mention. I don't see any depth of coverage at all, unless we're to count the self-promotion at YouTube and WordPress. But I haven't indeed done any searches in Hindi, I don't read Hindi. Perhaps somebody else here does? Bishonen &#124; talk 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks for your reply. I agree the sources so far aren't fantastic, indeed they are probably not enough for me to argue in favour of keeping the article. But this is why I prefer AfD's to PRODs for organisations with some notability. Hopefully, someone with Hindi language skills (or other Indian languages such as Tamil, Bengali or Punjabi) will search for sources in those languages. AusLondonder (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete India's tax based corporate social responsibility requirement makes it imperative for reasonably sized companies to 2% of net profits on CSR, so the fact that any one company contributes to an NGO is of no significance. There's no other significant coverage either. There's nothing borderline about this, and on a more serious point considering cases like this as "borderline" is what causes the systemic bias problem on Wikipedia -- genuine topics don't get the time and attention they deserve because anything under the sun is now thought to be probably notable because of a lack of evidence to the contrary and editors have to spend time to analyze these topics instead. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as nothing suggesting any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  06:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2016 (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.