Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LEAF where you stand


 * 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 speedy delete by (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 15:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

LEAF where you stand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of WP:GNG. Mostly WP:PROMO. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Zackmann08  | Please tell me now how I must  write down  the movement of the NGO TECHO, which results in South America more pronounced than TOMS shoes, according to Wikipedia policy. In South America may be we do not have as many houses and families with internet as the rest of the world, but this business model start changing our way of looking at thinks. I beg you give us a hand, take away all the stuff you think could be publicity to a brand. But remember LEAF may look like a brand but is only a path for TECHO NGO to make possible next winter over 30K children wont suffer or even die in Argentina. All the data is around the web, dont let my Inexperience in putting this together let you see beyond the tree. We are talking not of publicity, but lives, children, people. Not numbers. Help me to clean it up, making this article Wikipedia suitable.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinidad Marie (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In the Genera notability guideline you said:     written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

We stablished that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then we say  Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic"

Are we suggesting that TECHO NGO is-not a reliable sources? Because the project LEAF is the putting in practice of E.S. Parsons (Talcott Pasons should have the same problem?) business model, a revolutionary  concept of social an environmental view of the market,  The complete Quality Cycle as shown on www.leaf.social A web page of philosophical theory, independent of the comercial website that helps TECHO www.shop.leaf.com TECHO NGO with more than 2 Million people involved in their activity is not enough for the Wikipedia Standars? I beg your pardon Im confused, May be because here in south America are working so hard for the needy and dont have so much time to spend trying to get some recognition from first world countries

No indication of WP:GNG.??? => If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Again I beg your pardon, TECHO NGO with more than 2 Million people involved in their activity is not enough for the Wikipedia Standars? t a reliable source? 100% the NGO explaining the new market idea...

it came to my attention, shouldn't someone from latin america take a look at an article referring a latin america NGO? it seems a little bit annoying that a unite state citizen decided that TOMS business model should prevail in wikipedia and LEAF with th complete quality cycle shouldn't, with TECHO NGO standing for it. Does it have any relation with the new us administration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinidad Marie (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * We require third-party reliable sources (such as a newspaper, magazine or television news feature). TECHO NGO issued a press release; this does not count toward notability on Wikipedia. —Мандичка YO 😜 18:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Razr   Nation  10:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as G11 - this article is shameless promotion written like an "about us" section of a website, and company fails GNG at this time. I searched for Spanish sources as well. I can find plenty of indications on buying the shoes online, but no news coverage to speak of that indicates it meets requirements. —Мандичка YO 😜 17:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08   Wikimandia This page is not unambiguously promotional, the Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion applies if the article  serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the same criteria said that the  mere fact that a company, organization, or product is a page's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion. Wikipedia recognize TECHO NGO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TECHO in their pages. Its known that there is information that takes more or less time to spread through the network. TECHO´s LEAF project is not less than TOMS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toms_Shoes "one for one" business model.On the contrary, it is vastly superior. Seeking not to build a company ( like TOMS) that perceives millionaires profits, on the contrary generate genuine funds for the NGO. A new market paradigm The complete quality cycle. We are Latin Americans. Our media is not as fast as those of first world countries. Little by little the cycle is going public. It is a theoretical concept. Raised in the university. It is not full digitized, but its real, its not a publicity, or promotion of a a brand. Let me ask you how can you be sure Fidel Castro is dead? Shouldnt we wait to see it before we allought this on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro ? All the sources are a replica of what de Cuban goberment said. and we believed it. why? The Complete Quality Cycle is a new paradigma from students of prestogious Universidad de Buenos Aires, it already got an internation award, TECHO took that model to try to change the life of 3 Millon people in Argentina next year. And may be ot will be tomorrows market arrangement. There is more variety of sources than the death of Castro. So it is arbitrary what article can be and what is not? TOMS speaks not only of its business model, but also of the brand that markets sneakers. We seemed logical to name LEAF, which is nothing other than the implementation of the theoretical concept "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE". Do you want to let TOM talk about the brand, and force us to remove LEAF? ok, we are social, we want to stand up and show whats happening with "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE". How in south america we are changing tomorrows market. It doesnt seems fair. We have the 1/9 of the access to the network that the industrialized countries, It would seem obvious that we would have fewer sources than TOMS. At the end of the day, unlike TOMS, this is a college development. A contribution to humanity. Handled its implementation by an NGO. Not a business. I regret that so many people in industrialized countries lend themselves to indecent mistreatment like this one. Or direct as the mocking  from  the guy who was in communication with me.

Last but no least, remember Albert Einstein quote "Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid" May be in south america we are like fish, and we do not have the instant access to create several sources of what we already have in papers. "THE COMPLETE QUALITY CYCLE" You are making a Wikipedia only for those who have the money to acces the internet. Cheers! .--Trinidad Marie (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC) comment added by Trinidad Marie (talk
 * Wikipedia is FULL of articles about non-profits and non-corporate entities, charities, etc. Thousands and thousands. The requirement is that the article must be thoroughly discussed in reliable, third-party sources. You don't have any newspapers, magazines or TV news discussing LEAF. TECHO has this coverage. Sorry. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE has never been and will never be a valid argument. All you are doing is distracting from the issue at hand. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.