Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Social Research

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Social Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm unable to find any decent non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources, per the requirements of WP:NCORP. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There appear to be many news sources about the activities of the organisation, for example, a quick search in The Times of India alone yielded numerous nontrivial sources about the organisation - [1][2][3][4][5][6], which include producing reports in collaboration with major organisation such as UN Women - [7] It should qualify under WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Hzh (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on account of verifiable claim of notability. All the references currently cited in the article are primary sources (and one of them seems dead) but the ones provided above by Hzh seal the deal. -The Gnome (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is clear from the comments above that the two Keep !voters are not familiar with WP:NCORP and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Not a single one of the references mentioned in the article or the Times of India references above meet the criteria for establishing notability. Not one of the references is intellectually independent as required to establish notability. The Gnome above even argues that "all of the references currently cited are primary sources", seemingly oblivious to the fact that primary sources automatically fail WP:ORGIND and do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to believe there's something wrong with my English. Didn't I make clear that the sources already cited in the article are primary and, thus, not acceptable? Why did I link to the very policy that says so, do you think? I went on to add that it's the material unearthed by Hzh above that permits the subject to claim notability. But perhaps I'm still not making myself clear. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, you did say that but your comment was ambiguous nonetheless particularly in light of your subsequent comment that the Times of India references "sealed the deal". HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing was simply using an interpretation of WP:ORGIND that is unreasonable. By his interpretation, UN Women would not be a notable organisation as coverage about the organisation would be about the reports released by the organisation and campaigns organised or promoted by them, therefore such news coverage would not be "intellectually independent". Hzh (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, unless there are intellectually independent comments/analysis/opinion on the reports then yes, the reports themselves fail the criteria for establishing notability. This is as it should be. Even if an article looks like all the references are PRIMARY or fail the criteria, a WP:BEFORE check would turn up more than enough to meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:04, 15 June 2018 (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.