Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Resources for the Improvement of Sight


 * 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. This nomination is about the notability of this organization, and the keep voters do not make a convincing argument or provide sources to sufficiently establish notability. -Scottywong | gab _ 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

International Resources for the Improvement of Sight

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable charity. None of the independent references in the article actually mention the charity. Nothing in google except for a few charities databases, which suggest that it's Cambodian focused, rather than the international focus of the article. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This one is tough because it's a small charity that operates in a somewhat rarefied world of anonymous high-end donors, but one can find evidence of notability. From the charity website:
 * "In February, Roger Biggs, IRIS Director of Programs, was presented with an O.B.E. (Order of the British Empire) by Prince Charles at an investiture held at Buckingham Palace. The award, announced in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours list, was in recognition of his services to eye health in South East Asia."
 * The son of the President of India was also in attendance at one of the charities events in India. I realize these things are notability by association, but they do show the organization as being notable in the world of non-profits. It is a small charity operating with little fanfare in the press but quite well known to some of the world's top leaders. Unfortunately the entire article is a copyright violation of this page, so it would need to be rewritten (or permission secured for use, since the webpage says the content is Copyright). The French version has the same problem. There is also the good possibility sources exist in other languages, since the charity does work in foreign countries it would be notable in those places where people are being helped. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger Biggs did not get an OBE for 'his services to eye health in South East Asia' he got them for 'For services to health in Asia' which shows how much we can trust the IRIS website. Alas notability is not inherited. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Biggs known for other than eye care? Usually eye doctors are a specialty. I would think that description is generic by the nature of the document, the non profit website could be a clarification of the type and location of his work. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. There is no such thing as "notability by association". The subject's own website and/or publications cannot be used to support notability at all. Roger (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I found two mentions in reliable sources: 1. The CEO received the Order of the British Empire, and 2. International Resources for the Improvement of Sight helped out the Kandy Inner Wheel Club That isn't enough source content from which to write a Wikipedia article that meets WP:GNG. The charity's news web page http://www.irisasia.org/news/ is self written news rather than In-the-News coverage by others. There could be reilable source information in Cambodian or Indian language newspapers, but I think we would first need to see some of that before we could give the topic the benefit of the doubt. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a great example of Wikipedia systemic bias (WP:BIAS, bullet points # 2-4) regarding third world places and the poor who are under-reported in general. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree, which is why I only tagged it for notability and sources when I first came across it, rather than taking it straight to PROD. There are many solutions to WP:BIAS, but relaxing the sourcing requirements is not one of them. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep its backed by the World Health Organization and "restored the sight of 42,000 people". Fotaun (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have an independent reference that they're backed by the WHO and have "restored the sight of 42,000 people" I'm happy to withdraw the nomination, but currently there are no independent refs to support this. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it possible they are not telling the truth? Fotaun (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alas, people have been known to not tell the truth, which is once of the reasons we require independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2012 (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.