Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women LEAD (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Women LEAD
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

delete, this org fails GNG specifically WP:ORG. It is sourced but the sourcing is dubious and I still believe this is promotional. Here is a breakdown of the sources provided. founded by Claire and Claire, does its work in Nepal." this makes it more about the founders and not siginificant coverage for the organization.
 * the Forbes article is by a contributor, similar to wikipedia thus it can not be considered reliable.
 * In Peacebuilder there is literally one line about the foundation "Women LEAD, the organization co-
 * Peace x Peace [] states the exact same thing
 * [] is a compnay profile nothing more
 * The Hoya is a student newspaper about a student project []
 * [] is an interview with a co founder but is primarily to promote buying tickets. And the voices from the frontlines are contributors just like wikipedia thus again not a reliable source.
 * [] The Huff post is a blog by the founder. Thus again not a reliable source.
 * (removed mistake) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Several other editors pointed out in the first Articles for deletion discussion that it's notable enough for coverage in multiple secondary sources.
 * You wrote above: "Forbes article is by a contributor, similar to wikipedia thus it can not be considered reliable" - can you please explain what you mean by this; how is the Forbes article "similar to Wikipedia"?


 * Neither is this article promotional - yes the Peace X Peace reference includes two very brief mentions of that organisation's awards event last December: that doesn't make it "primarily to promote buying tickets", and more importantly doesn't make this article itself promotional for Peace X Peace or for Women Lead.


 * The WYSK reference used in the article cannot possibly be described as a "plug for funding". The two links "6" and "7" above that you've found from WYSK and Indiegogo were never used in the article as references, so can you please explain what they've got to do with this article?


 * Also, you wrote above "Here is a breakdown of the sources provided", but have so far only criticised 6 out of the 16 (now 17) sources provided. What's wrong with the rest of the sources? Ruby Murray (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The majority of the information is trivial. The biggest exception to that is [] the rest are plugs for funding or more focused on the founders of the foundation. I personally don't think the company warrants an article, however the founders do. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which of the references in the article is a plug for funding of the subject? Ruby Murray (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [] and []. Also to answer your question about Forbes if you notice this is from the contributor section, meaning I could sign up as a contributor and publish it. It doesn't count as a reliable source. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of those two references was ever used in the article, so it's puzzling that you keep mentioning them. Which of the references in the article is a plug for funding? Ruby Murray (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It may help you to read WP:NOTRELIABLE, it doesn't have to reflect that in the article the sources themselves is what happened. It states that "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." It's 11:30 pm so I am going to bed for the night. I'll check this in the morning. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly refused to answer my question: which of the references in the article is a "plug for funding"? You first tried to speedy-delete the article as spam, and then took it to Articles for deletion twice on the grounds of promotion plus notability, and every time I ask how it's promotional you dodge, and try to steer the discussion toward notability and sources. You refused since December to reply to my question of "where's the spam?" on the article's talk page, and in both AFDs to point out where the promotion is. This time, you've actually falsely accused me with fake references in the nomination to try to argue that the article is promotional. This is beginning to feel a bit like a vendetta. Good night. Ruby Murray (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that my answer doesn't satisfy you. I have answered several times but you don't like the answer. That's ok that's up to you, we all have our opinions. You can take that as a vendetta, mistaken beliefs or whatever makes you feel better. As far as the WSYK, you are correct that is a mistake on my end. I used the term Women LEAD when I searched and these came up. I had several tabs open and I confused the ones in the article and the ones from my own search. The other sources are still lacking though. Number 1 is a contibuted story to Forbes and not by the magazine or website.  Number 2 shows as not found []. Number 3 [] shows page ok. Number 4 is about the founder Claire N which describes her and not WomenLEAD as the recipient of the award..  "Generation Peace Award winner, Claire Naylor" (this is why I said the founders may warrant their own article). #5 is a self published interview by Claire C, hence unreliable and self promotional. Reference 6 is the companies own website which can not be used to establish notability. Number 7 is again more focused on the founders and not the business. Number 8 is an Interview of the founder. Number 10 is a blog, thus fails WP:RS. Number 11 can not be verified. Number 12 is the Hoya which the founders themselves state in 10/12 "the two co-founders want to make Women LEAD sustainable and reputable both at home in the U.S. and in Kathmandu" This makes it sound like it's not a notable company. Number 13 is just company info, again doesn't support notability. Number's 14 and 15 are the exact same article. The relevant passage " Claire Charamnac, representing her friend and co-founder and Generation Peace Awardee Claire Naylor, pointed out how much Claire has accomplished at the age of 22. “Imagine what she may do in the next 10 years!” Women LEAD, the organization co-founded by Claire and Claire, does its work in Nepal." This again highlights that the founder is the award winner and not the company. Number 16 is a list that names WLead as 10th in the category, for leadership, not a winner thus does not show notability. Number 17 mentions LEAD once that I can find saying "Women Lead Nepal, a NGO run by two Georgetown graduates in Kathmandu, organized the same on Women’s Day in which volunteers danced and marched around the roundabout in Jawalakhel chanting ‘My Future: My Voice’" Which is very trivial. That's leaves number 9 as the only partially acceptable source. That's a answer for every source you have listed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to learn that the references you incorrectly added to the nomination, and your subsequent assertion that "the rest are plugs for funding", were mistakes on your part, but you also need to cross them out in the nomination immediately to avoid misleading other editors, even if unintentionally. Ruby Murray (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: or from WP:GNG that require ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" or "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". If it is why do we have them listed the way we do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hell in a Bucket (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Easily meets WP:ORG just like it did eight months ago. The nominator seems to falsely assume that the sole purpose of references is to prove notability, disregarding the fact that primary references can be perfectly acceptable sources. As for notability, the wikilawyering gymnastics being used to discredit all of the sources disregards the fact that references such as this recent article, from June 2013, easily demonstrate that this organization meets general notability criteria, with significant coverage independent of the subject. The writeup in the The Hoya similarly demonstrates notability. Gobōnobō  + c 21:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Gobonobo would you consider the asking that the criteria being set out at WP:ORG to be wikilawyering?
 * inclusion in lists of similar organizations, Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists does not count towards notability at all, unless the list itself is
 * quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
 * passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.
 * Keep, exceeds WP:NOTE, good deal of secondary source coverage among multiple reliable references. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2013 (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.