Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seva Mandir


 * 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 draftify. This has been open long enough. There is general agreement that the organization is probably notable. However, there is not agreement as to whether the article is so promotional that it harms the encyclopedia. I'm am going to close this as "draftify", as DGG's suggestion seems the most practical here. It will allow and  to continue to improve the article if they wish, but will take it out of mainspace (and indexing). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Seva Mandir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization page created by the company itself User:Sevamandirudaipur, surprisingly it is live since 2010. Meeanaya (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * can you please clarify if you are nominating deletion for (a) lack of notability or (b)because it was self-created by the subject? If the former, I don't think notability is an issue as a quick search of Google Scholar and Google Books throws up with a large number of references in several credible books and academic journals about this organization. A citation needed tag would be a more appropriate response (in fact I now remember I did some reference clean-up on this article not too long ago). If it is the latter, then can you please point to WP policy showing this can be a reason for deletion? Thanks.Deccantrap (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , Seva Mandir is a very common term in India, used by all newspapers, media. If you want to connect to the correct Seva Mandir Udaipur, here is the search result, which are mostly local and non RS. For me, reasons are both, created and edited by the company itself and lack in-depth reliable sources. Meeanaya (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was not mistaking references to Seva Mandir, Udaipur, with generic use of the term. I am sufficiently conversant with the subject matter to not conflate the specific name with the generic name. Please refer to the following in-depth and reliable sources about Seva Mandir, Udaipur (which are only representative and do not represent the whole body of literature referencing Seva Mandir; these sources do not only mention Seva Mandir in passing, but study its work in detail):
 * 1) Article in the Asia Pacific Journal of Rural development referencing Seva Mandir's work in forestry development
 * 2) The book 'Civil Society and Democratization in India: Institutions, Ideologies and Interests' which references several aspects of Seva Mandir's work in health, education, forestry, and rural development in general
 * 3) Paper titled 'Health, healthcare and economic development' which references the work by Seva Mandir in the area of health
 * 4) Paper in International Journal of Rural Management referencing Seva Mandir's work in development women's self-help groups
 * You stated your grounds for deletion are both notability and self-creation. The former ground is not strong, based on the above evidence. In case of the latter, please direct me to the policy/policies which indicate self-creation is a criteria for deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a chance to look up consequences of a subject self-creating an article about itself. As per WP:YOURSELF, an organization creating an article about itself is discouraged but not prohibited as long as WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING are not violated. Because several independent editors have contributed to the Seva Mandir article and I do not see WP:NPOV or WP:NOTADVERTISING being violated, I don't think self-creation provides grounds for deletion. please let me know if I am misinterpreting any of the above factors.Deccantrap (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, for reasons noted above. Correct remedy for deficiency in articles is to edit or attach tags to fix, not deletion.Deccantrap (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draftify Not suitable for mainspace: insufficient good sources for notability, and written promotionally. . Reading the references above makes it seem that an acceptable article ccould be written, but it has to be written before we can keep it. This is one of the reasons we created Draft space. Before we had craft space, we sometimes used o keep articles usuch as these on the mere promise of rewriting and about two thirds of the time had to remove them when they did not actually get rewritten; now we have a better way.  The reason for not writing articles with strong COI is precisely that it is not likely to be a satisfactory article, as is demonstrated once again here--another reason why we have draft space.  DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Deccantrap, I have seen that you have voted strong keep on two AFDs I have pushed, at once place you have later on accepted that you were wrong. I am a local resident here, the company is running in a small room, nothing significant for them. The page was probably created by their digital marketing and it has been spamming the platform from last 10 years. Instead of Strong keep, it is very clearly Strongest Delete. If you don't agree with me, please review the comment of DGG. Let's not waste more time and delete and close this AFD.Meeanaya (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Deccantrap, The day this company will be notable, I will create it myself. Meeanaya (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:, unfortunately your knowledge as a local resident is not helpful for the purpose of implementing WP policies. WP uses a process based on third-party, independent sources. As such, I have provided several credible, independent sources above, which underscore the notability of the subject matter. You are welcome to rebut my argument by indicating why you think those sources do not indicate notability.Deccantrap (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of moving your comments and my response, made after re-listing to BELOW the relisting so that the administrator who revisits this AfD nom can identify the later comments.Deccantrap (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 06:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (basically a Keep vote but this discussion is going nowhere) Clearly a notable topic that has been covered in multiple reliable sources in-depth. There is also coverage in a lot of other books    and Livemint  and there are even more books with just snippets without previews like Fieldstaff Reports: South Asia Series Volume 19, The Bombay Civic Journal Volume 14, Antipoverty Rural Development In India, Participatory Watershed Development: Challenges for the Twenty-First Century.... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. Notable or not, this is too promotional to keep.  Sandstein   11:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Sandstein, this spammy stuff needs a good dose of TNT. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources found by definitively establish that Seva Mandir passes Notability in having received significant coverage in multiple book sources. I removed a promotional sentence from the article and do not find the rest of the text to be particularly promotional. The article text contains factual information about the group. I do not consider this to be a WP:TNT case. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2019 (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.