Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Womanity 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 no consensus. There is no consensus for deletion, which defaults to the article remaining. Issues about promotional tone are to be dealt with by cleanup, not deletion (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  13:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Womanity Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:NOTPROMOTION/WP:SPIP: it is written like an advertisement and was created by a WP:SPA, which also created an article for this organization's founder (which is also in AfD). Article also fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG: there is no WP:RS evidence of notability cited in the article at all: all cites are connected to this organization or to general social science statistics. I tried looking for more WP:RS, but I could find none. All either consisted of superficial mentions of this organization or were in some way connected to it (such as by being written by employees or by donors).

It should be noted that at least one major news organization is a donor to this organization, so content from them is not a WP:RS. GretLomborg (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * See also Articles for deletion/Yann Borgstedt, the AfD discussion for this organization's founder, created by the same WP:SPA. - GretLomborg (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Blatant 'good faith' spam, but another example why we do a poor job of informing people what they can and can not put in an encyclopedia. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No independant references, does not pass WP:RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete promotional. Light2021 (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added some additional references that indicate WP:GNG clearly met. Article could use cleanup, not deletion per WP:ATD. I suggest also using Fondation Womanity when searching for additional references. Hmlarson (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Very weak coverage in independent RSs. Rentier (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is promotional in tone and needs a cleanup for sure, but that is not a valid argument to delete. Sources found by Hmlarson satisfy the depth of coverage in reliable sources that WP:CORP demands.  A  Train ''talk 16:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Reuters, Mashable, the Gaurdian. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  01:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Guardian - not much more than a passing mention. Mashable - sort of, but it says very little about the foundation itself - which is probably why the article relies on primary sources. I don't see any Reuters ref. Rentier (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was Thomas Reuters News, and is a passing mention. L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  12:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The idea to delete this article is incomprehensible. A quick google shows a huge number of reliable sources. Aren't they supposed to check that before they nominate it for deletion? All it needs now is a few good edits. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The coverage is shallow and/or not independent. Thomson Reuters articles don't count since TR is a "partner" of the foundation. Guardian - two sentences and a quote. Huffington Post - written by Womanity's director. Mashable - nothing in it about the foundation itself. sociable.co and techcrunch - very shallow. Not much remains if these are discounted. In any case, the article is so promotional in tone and badly sourced that I don't see why it shouldn't  be deleted per WP:TNT. The encyclopedia won't be any worse without it. Rentier (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete As per Rentier's analysis. I'm finding the same thing.  It should be noted that the Thomson Reuters article does not appear to be from their news service at all, it appears to be a promotional post on their foundation's blog about an organization they've donated to  written by that organization's employees.  It's an interesting example of a source that looks reliable on the surface, but completely fails WP:RS as non-independent when actually examined.  Ditto for the Forbes article, which was written by a "contributor" from "Ashoka" which listed as a partner of this organization.  This is a WP:PROMOTION violation that depends on unreliable sources for its content, if that content was removed there would be nothing left of the article. - Rrachet (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the Reuters point is valid (as it's a placed opinion piece rather than an earned media reporting piece), the Guardian piece is more than a mention - and it's noteworthy because news about women in Afghanistan, particular girls' education, rarely makes it to English-language media. To dismiss the article because it's not deep enough is dismissive of the context; it's indeed quite noteworthy to enroll 40 teen girls in a coding program in two of Kabul's largest schools and for that news to make it to the Guardian. I agree with others that this needs a clean-up; as a woman who learned to code because of resources like Wikipedia, I would like to volunteer over the next week to help clean up this article to save it from deletion. This is a well-intentioned article that can be saved with more neutral editing and more citations. Bluestategirl (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , you have noble intentions, but this article clearly conflicts with our policies and guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * are you going to attempt to rebut Bluestategirl's policy-based argument or are you just going to mansplain? Please don't be so casually dismissive of other editors' considered opinions.  A  Train ''talk 21:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * do not see the need to get personal here. wikipedia is for everyone. and apart from WP:GNG logic, which is being misused in such cases. what sources are we talking about to follow in depth coverage?Light2021 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * please assume good faith and do not resort to put downs or disparagement. That's not helpful or productive. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , assuming good faith goes both ways. While should avoid loaded/triggering words such as "mansplaining," the fact is that  should avoid accidental condescension "you have noble intentions" (Kudpung does not know 's intentions unless they talked about this) and address the content of the argument, rather than assert they know the article conflicts with guidelines. If it was that clear that the article should be deleted, it would be a Snow Delete. The fact we are discussing this belies the claim that this is "obviously" a non notable topic. I've been on the fence with this one myself. (I tagged the talk page and have been watching.) Let's move forward together. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY and likely self-promotion, with a massive amount of external links in body. This content can just as effectively be housed on the org's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Can see heaps of independent references for this organisation online - including Non-English - including from reputable sources. Doesn't sound like you looked very hard before judging. as few examples of coverage that mention some of their activities: charity fundraisers, a $300,000 technology award to create something that combats violence against women, involvement in conferences, female education and entrepreneurship programs, advocacy, etc. Also consider it used to be called Smiling Child Foundation, so will have to search under that name too. I'll put some time into improving the article to address the issues raised, but it is clearly a notable organisation. I also disagree with your claim of SPA - the original author previously also contributed to a page by an Egyptian actress and a page by a Lebanese singer.... unless you are complaining that someone is contributing pages related to diverse aspects of Arab countries? And a quick search of the founder of the organisation shows that he is notable too, so no wonder someone writing about one would also write about the other (as I have done in the past - start writing about one thing, and then end up writing on other linked pages because you find info missing from wikipedia ... that is natural). It annoys me that rather than helping someone fairly new to editing wikipedia to make their articles better it is instead marked for deletion despite being a notable organisation. Powertothepeople (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Doesn't sound like you looked very hard before judging:" on the WP:SPA issue, actually look at the WP:SPA's edits, every single one has to do with this organization, even the ones to the articles about the Lebanese singer and Egyptian actress. Did you read the sources you dropped that closely? I don't have time to thoroughly summarize, but they seem shallow like the other sources previously discussed: a short quote by an employee in one article, a profile of a person with a half-sentence mention that they were a finalist for one of this org's awards, etc.  Also when we start dealing with foreign language sources, it's much harder to tell if they're actually WP:RS or just some blog or something.  Just listing search hits isn't enough.  That's not even getting into the issues of employee-authored articles and other kinds of non-independent coverage that have also been an issue here. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to the numerous sources you have written off because you don't deem to be reliable enough, there are also citations of the UK Telegraph, Forbes, a book written by a cambridge academic, etc. And yes I have looked at these and more, because I took the time. Ignoring all non-english sources simply because you don't personally know whether they are reliable is bad faith. No one is disagreeing that this article was poor quality with numerous issues, however numerous people having now made edits to improve it and added more reliable citations AND the wikipedia guide to deletion states: "please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." And "A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality" You didn't follow this process prior to listing this article for deletion. Even if the creator has a COI it is possible they have overstepped in good faith - they clearly don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia editing and we all make mistakes while we get to know all the rules. In fact, listing it straight for deletion without attempt to discuss it with the creator or on the talk page or trying to improve it could be considered WP:BITE Multiple people have pointed out there are enough reliable sources to confirm notability of the organisation, yet you seem more intent on sticking with your first impression rather than considering new evidence. Why don't you take a look at the article with fresh eyes? By all means tag it for cleanup, but it doesn't qualify for deletion. Powertothepeople (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel like your main issue here is that I'm not automatically agreeing with you. You started off your comment with a pretty judgmental "doesn't sound like you looked very hard before judging," and then proceeded judge without looking very hard yourself.  I think it's important to look beyond mere search hits; and look at the depth of coverage, independence, and source organization.  You apparently disagree.  I've seen non-notable teenagers use very tricky self-sourcing to try to build justification for their self-promotional autobiographies, so I've learned to be skeptical, and the best quality coverage of this org seems to be non-independent.  I have considered withdrawing this AfD, as it seems to be slouching towards no consensus, but your hectoring and stalking hasn't made me very enthusiastic about that idea.  Anyway, this isn't shaping to very productive discussion, and I've said my piece, so I'm bowing out. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep World-wide sources in multiple languages are sufficient to establish GNG. In addition to those already cited by Powertothepeople:, , , , , , ,  Promotional writing style is an editing issue, which has nothing to do with whether sufficient coverage over time in reliable sources has been established. SusunW (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Again, an example of bad writing but notable topic. Plenty of sources to meet GNG, so keep, but someone needs to go in there with a shovel and clear out all the cruft.   Montanabw (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, if i had read this afd earlier i may have suggested everyone have some tea, has anyone noticed that the nominator is relatively new to wp (earliest edit is 30 May 2017), they appear to be concentrating on afds, although unusual for new editors, is not unheard of, oh, btw this article is a keep as it meets WP:GNG, and the article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Powertothepeople and SusunW. The Womanity Foundation clearly meets Notability. Hmlarson, Powertothepeople, and SusunW have significantly improved this article during the AfD. Cunard (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as what I find different in this and how we're weighing it is actually how WP:What Wikipedia is not applies and its specific sections, WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:Not webhost, WP:Indiscriminate and WP:Promo, all of allow deletion in the relevant cases, and this is no different, regardless anything else; and GNG is particularly inapplicable against WP:NOT policies and this would actually include superseding sources, when and if they would still be unconvincing in the best interests for Wikipedia. The information and sources closely suggest a business profile, of which we of course wouldn't accept, regardless of significant claims. As 3 different comments voting Keep noted above, "bad writing" and "promotional writing" which is why it's best to use caution and fully consider its effects and likewise with a fourth, "Promotional writing style is an editing issue", and it's why WP:NOT exists, to effectively remove it. At best, there's always the considerations to Draft an article for independent improvements, but allowing past promotionalism to stay is fundamentally unacceptable, and the WMF has echoed these serious sentiments; . I happened to examine the sources above and, regardless of language fluency, I was able to see they're simply announcements and the suggestive foundation is in them to emulate it. SwisterTwister   talk  04:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify your position? I found it a little hard to follow, but I think I get what you're saying.  - GretLomborg (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. borderline notability--and clear promotionalism .  Of the two, the promotionalism is the more important reason, Keeping promotionalism  so it can be rewritten is a direct violation of the basic principle, nOT ADVOCACY, --the  only time the articles should be kept is if it in fact is rewritten during the AfD, or if it is so highly notable that its clear good people will work on it.  Otherwise we end up with it here indefinitely. The only sure way of removing promotionalism  is at AfD.--otherwise it's just a pious hope.    DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep a bit. I was thinking of closing this per DGG, then of closing this per SusunW, and then I did this, which I believe should increase its chances of survival. It's surprising to me that after so many edits such content was still in the article. Drmies (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2017 (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.