Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Prem Rawat Foundation


 * 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. BJ Talk 03:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The Prem Rawat Foundation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I came across this article today. I saw very minimal sourcing on the Prem Rawat Foundation itself, and was hard pressed to find substantial, non-trivial reporting about the Prem Rawat Foundation itself to make it notable, beyond finding press releases about their work in charitable giving--but that is any number of similar charities, making this one no more notable than any other. I'm not sure it meets WP:N. Are there multiple non-trivial articles or stories or independent reporting about this group? rootology ( C )( T ) 06:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a small foundation (budget around $1 or $2 million) with no real claim to notability. It doesn't meet the notability standards set out in WP:ORG. The only "independent" sources are press releases, and the articel is almost entirely sourced from the foundation itself. I've been meaning to nominate this for a while now, aad had alerted involved editors months ago. Despite the warnings they haven't been able to find substantial sources.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep covered in many news sources including MarketWatch, Forbes, PR Newswire, Medical News Today, The Earth Times and Albuquerque Journal. It is true that the news articles that discuss this charity are more focused on the charities work that the organization itself but this AfD is taking the spirit of ONEEVENT a bit too far. - Icewedge (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, most of the sources you've listed are little more than reprints of press releases. ONEEVENT isn't so much the problem as that the foundation simply doesn't meet the notability stadnards for organizations. Even if we did have independently written articles about this or that charitable contribution, the article is about the foundation, and so we need to have articles about the foundation itself in order to establish notability. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PRNewswire is a source for press releases. Press releases are not reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are Rotary International, The Philippine National Red Cross, the Barcelona Forum 2004, the ndonesian Development of Education and Permaculture, the Houston Food Bank, and the UN World Food Program reliable 3rd party sources? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those don't really count as 3rd-party sources and those are press releases, so they don't count towards notability. Furthermore, they are about specific charitable donations rather than the foundation. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would these 3rd parties press releases not count? If a charitable organization is referred to by third party organizations that surely count. In any case, I think we have presented our arguments already, so let's allow others to comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. All kinds of non-notable organizations crank out press releases and pay or trick people into publishing them when they have column space to fill. I don't see how this organization is any different. Kelly  hi! 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * SO, are you asserting that the UN World Food Program and other NGOs have bee tricked or paid off? You have got to be kidding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They all have to raise money somehow. But press releases are not a measure of notability. We need reliable, neutral sources. Kelly  hi! 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unless we're running out of memory, why would you seek to remove it? This is the foundation of a notable person and provides additional info.Momento (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing about the notability of the foundation's namesake. But there is no sign that the foundation itself is notable. In the Los Angeles, everybody of substance has a foundation. It's not a big deal. This information could easily be merged into the Prem Rawat article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. If you are proposing to merge, then why are you !voting delete? I would not oppose a merge. Or are you suggesting that a redirect will not be needed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi, you may have forgotten, but I did propose this for merger back in April, and you opposed it. Twice, you told me to nominate it for AfD instead of merging. You also said that if it did come up for AfD you would not participate in the discussion. Yet here you are, contradicting yourself and violating your commitment. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 07:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Added quote from "Indian Life&Style" published by India West founded in 1975. The most honored weekly Indian newspaper in North America. Winner of 28 awards for excellence in journalism.Momento (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What's your source for that information? From what I can see it is a small-circulation magazine tending towards puff-pieces. It has 1/7 the circulation of its main competitor. Another competitor says it has "minimal visibility and reach."   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that only "the most popular" publications are reliable sources? If so we need to do a huge clean up over at Prem Rawat and Millennium.Momento (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to source your assertions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any assertions but here's the publishers home page Momento (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that this magazine is a reliable source because the publisher's other publication has won awards? Interesting. Anyway, unless that article is about the TPRF then the addition of a quotation doesn't do anything to establish the notability of this foundation. See WP:ORG for the relevant standards. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added quote from Leaders magazine - LEADERS is the only worldwide magazine that deals with the broad range of leadership thoughts and visions of the world's most influential people. LEADERS was founded in 1978 by Henry O. Dormann.Momento (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but a quote mentioning the foundation in passing doesn't establish it's notability. What we need is an article devoted to the foundation itself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete appears to fail the notability criteria as well as verifiability. Only coverage I can find are press releases (which no matter what publication they appear in are primary sources). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (The sources presented in that article are not primary sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I disagree. The foundation's own website and press releases put out by the organisation are the very definition of primary source. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, these are self-published sources, which is different, and can be used with some caveats as per policy. In addition, there are many other sources unrelated to this organization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the caveats is that self-published sources may not be used to establish notability. See Notability (organizations and companies). ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What primary sources? I see all but one to be non-sepf published sources. Unless you are asserting that the UN World Food Program, The Philippine Red Cross, and Rotary International are "self-published", which is certaninly not the case: See WP:SPS, which refers to "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything at the Rotary website. Link rot? Wherever they are, they appear to be press releases. WP:ORG, specifically says that press releases don't count towrds notability. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Red again, my highlight: Press releases where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself - These are not from the foundation, but from highly regarded NGOs. -≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The appearance is that those are press releases written by TPRF and posted to those websites. For example, there is text in the PRC page that is a verbatim copy of what's in published TPRF press releases. So it does appear to be the TPRF talking about itself. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "appearances" are misleading. Who are theses press release from? Who is signing them? In which website are these published? Just look at the source.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the archive copy of the Rotary press release. It devotes two sentences to TPRF. Is it your contention that two sentences in a deleted press relase establish notability? As for the other press relases, they published by U.S Newswire. But you already knew that.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * US Newsire is just the outlet for these releases. The publishers are the organizations that sign the release. But I am sure you already knew that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not "signed", but they do say, "Contact: The Prem Rawat Foundation, 310-392-5700 or pressrelations(At)tprf.org" at the end. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment More sources which have yet to be incorporated into the article are available here: Talk:The_Prem_Rawat_Foundation/Sources . The relevant guideline for non-commercial organizations is available here: Notability_(organizations_and_companies) [User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then include them in the article after making sure that they actually conform to the policy cause they sure didn't look like they did when I looked earlier. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in editing that article, but you are welcome to look into these sources and add it yourself if you assess these sources as being independent of the subject of the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I already stated above I had a look before commenting in the AfD to begin with. If you who seems to think they are adequate can't be bothered to include them why, should I who believes they aren't adequate to the task do it for you?Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per Will's statement above. Sylviecyn (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arguments for keeping this article are very weak, especially so given the commitment level of those who argue to keep it. If there are relevant 3rd-party articles produced, I will consider changing my mind. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 03:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it is somewhat disingenuous to challenge the "level of commitment of people of those who argue to keep it" when you and the the editor above you, who are declared critics of the subject of this article are single purpose accounts:  -  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are single purpose editors on both sides, so you're right that it doesn't help the discussion to get into it. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is one SPA for keep and two SPAs for delete. Hope other non-involved editors can contribute to this discussion. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see- you complain when involved editors make a comment, then you complain when uninvolved editors participate? Maybe it'd be better if you let this AfD take its course without further complaints about the participants. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jossi's Conflict of Interest. Sylviecyn (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not a declared critic of the subject of the article, is that some kind of new tactic? Paint people that disagree with you with colours that are easier to fight against? And nothing against Sylviecyn, but I hardly think we have anything in common, she's an ex-premie, and up until Feb, I had never even heard of Prem Rawat. Bit of a silly comparison really. I'm disinterested in PR, however Jossi and friends (hey, that sounds like a ... never mind...) are clearly highly motivated to make PR's star shine as brightly as possible, (I don't think that can be argued against with a straight face), so where's this "disingenuous"-ness to which Jossi refers? No idea...I am a declared critic of revisionist history though, but we're not talking about that here. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 02:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Rootology. Also, Will's concerns on notability are valid. Kelly  hi! 04:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. In spite of being given several months to do so by WillBeback, editors have apparently been unable to find independent, reliable sources for this article.  The content should probably occupy a sentence or two at most in the Prem Rawat article, if it's currently unlocked for editing. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Fails WP:N and WP:ORG.  Enigma  message 05:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge as there is no need to dispose of a lot of relevant information collected in the article. As for notability, there may be some difference of appraisal depending on whether you are recipient or donor of what TPRF does, or just happily busy with your POV.--Rainer P. (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Many notable people have foundations and organizations which further their philanthropic of social ideals.  Few of those organizations achieve encyclopedic notability.  This foundation, whatever its good works, appears to have not (yet) been the subject of any significant verifiable coverage that would establish notability.  Delete, as such, without prejudice should notability be established in the future.    user:j    (aka justen)   07:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with the delete rationale provided in above comments by Rootology, Will Beback, Cla68, and J. Attempts to find significant coverage and discussion of the subject of this article in independent sources not affiliated with the subject of the article itself were unsuccessful:
 * A search in LexisNexis for "Prem Rawat Foundation" revealed 199 results - all press releases, except for about 5 hits to the same secondary source article, in the Evening Standard (partial view at HighBeam Research):
 * A search in InfoTrac yielded only one press release - and about 8 instances again of the Evening Standard article.
 * In a search in Newsbank 15 results came up - 5 of those were yet again to the same Evening Standard article from May 2007. The rest are all extremely brief mentions only, which appear to be publicity placements, a few press releases, and one or two other bits which focus mainly on Prem Rawat and do not give significant discussion of "The Prem Rawat Foundation", other than that it is "based in Los Angeles". A few others are newswire releases built mainly on "according to an announcement by the foundation..." - and then a large quoted section of a press release from the foundation. There is one other secondary source, The Courier Mail, which does not appear to be related to or drawn from press releases, but the mention of the "Prem Rawat Foundation" is only in passing:
 * No real significant discussion in books, only a passing mention here:
 * Was unable to find significant discussion in scholarly works/academic journals.
 * Please provide further comments below, and not interspersed in my above comment. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No call for merging it with Prem Rawat yet? -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 08:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was proposed a few months ago and rejected by eitors on both sides of the issue. That's not binding on us here and now, of course. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Rootology, Will Beback, Cla68, J and Cirt. Not merge, as content is peripheral to the Prem Rawat BLP, where the existence of TPRF and Rawat’s relationship to TPRF can be recored,  but all other content of the TPRF article is extraneous to the BLP. TPRF is doubly non notable because it's only public activity is providing small level grants for ‘humanitarian’ purposes, the grants are made to ‘delivery agencies’ which are themselves notable and it is in WP articles on those entities where noting TPRF grants might have relevance. Although given the low levels of the grants even that may not meet notability criteria. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   —Cirt (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   —Cirt (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.   —Cirt (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions.   —Ism schism (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SPS don't establish WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * off-topic discussion moved to talk page  MBisanz  talk 14:07, 19 September 2008 (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.