Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Disease


 * 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 redirect to Sam Prince (humanitarian). Consensus below exists not to retain the article, and this proposed redirect is a good ATD. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

One Disease

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

The article subject fails WP:NGO by lacking WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage in multiple WP:ORGIND-compliant reliable secondary sources. Sources currently in the article do not provide this, nor do sources I have been able to encounter online. A full source analysis table of the sources in the article will be listed below as a separate comment to further demonstrate this. The article has previously been deleted per WP:G11 and the current version of the article contains paid contributions. Given the article subject fails to be notable, though its founder appears to be notable and has a Wikipedia page, I propose that this article be redirected to Sam Prince (humanitarian). — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'm trying not to maintain a super-hawkish stance re notability of humanitarian nonprofits, so looking to find the reasons for keeping here. I think if the currently unsourced paragraph on making scabies a notifiable disease could be well cited, that would make for a reasonable claim to substantial impact on the field. Also found this, which while a clearly sympathetic interview, is at least partly analytical and from a solid publication. - Having said that, merging further material to the section at Sam Prince (humanitarian) wouldn't be the end of the world either. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't access the source immediately (I will try to figure out a way to do so). But, in any case, doesn't WP:NORG require multiple independent RS that have independent content? If it's an interview with the founder, this typically would fail that requirement. And, if the scope of the NGO's activities is less than national or international in scale (i.e. it basically only works in the Northern Territories), wouldn't that still be a failure to meet either necessary condition of WP:NGO? — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep  The subject is referenced in multiple reliable national news sources with editorial overview.  It is referenced by multiple Government agencies.  It is referenced in peer reviewed journals.  See here for example.  While some of these are weak references, some seem to be quite strong.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which ones, in particular, seem to be quite strong? I've provided a source-by-source analysis above; I'd appreciate if you could list the sources you believe demonstrate this meeting WP:NORG's significant coverage criteria. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mhawk10. Changing my !vote to delete. Actually I now agree with you.  The "Crusted Scabies Elimination Program" (CSEP) is (clearly) notable.  It is the subject of my "strong" references.  All of the good, independent material is about the CSEP, run by One Disease, not about One Disease itself, and N is not inherited.  Aoziwe (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a venue for paid promotion. We need to stop rewarding those who try to use it as such. Blow it away. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage includes a paragraph in this study, ABC news article on a "mysterious donation" the organization received, Philanthropy Australia, Global Citizen, Big Ideas Forum. They seem to be cited regularly in the scabies literature. Article doesn't seem so promotional to me that we need WP:TNT here. Rusalkii  (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2021 (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.