Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalsa Aid

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 has been precious little discussion of the source material, and very many assertions of notability without supporting evidence. As such there's really no substance here that can serve as the basis for consensus, and the sources provided at the very end of the discussion have not been analyzed in any depth. So I'm closing as "no consensus", explicitly with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalsa Aid

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH - Most of the sources are primary and/or routine and prove they exist, but not that they are notable. GSS ^💬 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability and no in-depth coverage from sources not directly connected with the subject Spiderone 11:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm now neutral as to whether it should be kept or deleted. It's a borderline case as it has plenty of coverage in the media but not all of it is in-depth. Spiderone 09:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The org has got significant news coverage in India in recent years, e.g. during 2020 Delhi riots. GD (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivashree: Please point out those sources. GSS ^💬 15:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable NGO. No in-depth coverage, fails WP:ORG. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 05:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not convinced with the three votes above. Hope something better comes up
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it satisfies WP:NGO. It's work is national and international in scale and has received multiple mentions in secondary sources. News Articles: [1] [2] [3] Books: [4] Establishing WP:Neutrality might be difficult because of the quantity of positive news articles about their charitable work, but I think there's enough to write an article. Z1720 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are all passing mention and none provide in-depth coverage as required by WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 11:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NGO says, "These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability." Thus I am using NGO's criteria to establish notablity instead of WP:ORGDEPTH. Also, ORGDEPTH, NGO, and even WP:GNG are guidelines, not policy. I believe editors need to use their own critical thinking to establish if an article fulfils our core content policies (WP:COPO). I agree that the Khalsa Aid article is a borderline case, but I think with enough searching and evaluating of sources we can find enough information to create an article. Z1720 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still if you are going with WP:NGO we need coverage beyond passing mentions and at present almost all the sources are passing mention and none discuss the organization directly and in details as what WP:NGO#2 require The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. GSS ^💬 15:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG, available citations clearly shows its notability.--Irshadpp (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out sources that satisfy WP:GNG rather than just saying per WP:GNG? GSS ^💬 11:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG, available citations clearly shows its notability. It is a charitable organisation that responds to the wider community in state of disaster and state of emergency. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per above just saying per WP:GNG it's better if you can also point out those sources. Thank you, GSS ^💬 11:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Plenty of reliable refereces at the article already. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We know there is plenty of reliable sources exist that mention this organization but can you provide atelas one sources that discuss "Khalsa Aid" independently? all those sources confirm they exist but not that they are notable. GSS ^💬 05:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin as I pointed out above, there is sources that has mentioned (passing mention) this organization, but there is nothing that discuss the orgonization independently as per WP:NGO or WP:ORGDEPTH and none of the keep !voters above managed to provide such sources so, this should be closed as delete, draftify or relisted for another week. Thank you, GSS ^💬 05:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this a third relist given the lack of specificity by keep participants, even when asked, as to how sources establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to apoligise for the delayed response to the relisting comment above. I still believe this is article is a weak keep because there are sources [5], [6] [7] that show significant coverage of their actions in a provincial, national or international setting. There are also editorials that profile Khalsa Aid's international activities [8] [9] although I would consider these less reliable due to their editorial nature. Some sources like [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] show more local coverage, and taken together with the first set of sources listed showcase the work that this organisation does. With these sources, I think we can provide a description of the organisation, fulfiling WP:ORGDEPTH. I think it's a "weak keep" (instead of "keep") because the sources do not provide much information on the history of Khalsa Aid between its founding and circa mid-2010s, so our article might focus too much on their current charitable work. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG [18] ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.