Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Disease

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 redirect to Sam Prince (humanitarian). Consensus below exists not to retain the article, and this proposed redirect is a good ATD. Daniel (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One Disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article subject fails WP:NGO by lacking WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage in multiple WP:ORGIND-compliant reliable secondary sources. Sources currently in the article do not provide this, nor do sources I have been able to encounter online. A full source analysis table of the sources in the article will be listed below as a separate comment to further demonstrate this. The article has previously been deleted per WP:G11 and the current version of the article contains paid contributions. Given the article subject fails to be notable, though its founder appears to be notable and has a Wikipedia page, I propose that this article be redirected to Sam Prince (humanitarian). — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:

(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward NORG?
Sydney Morning Herald	This newspaper is independent of One Disease.	This is a WP:NEWSORG.	~ The article provides significant coverage of the founder of One Disease, but it does provide substantial coverage of the NGO up for deletion.	~ Partial
Forbes (contributor)	? See WP:FORBESCON.	See WP:FORBESCON.	~ The focus of the article appears to be on a newer philanthropic venture rather than One Disease.	✘ No
News Corp Australia	News.com.au is independent of One Disease	News.com.au is a WP:NEWSORG.	The subject of the news report is the founder of One Disease, but the NGO only gets half a sentence of coverage.	✘ No
ACNC Charity Register	This is a government register.	This is a government register.	This is a highly primary source and cannot give WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
University of Notre Dame Australia Press Release	This is a press release.	This is a press release.	~ There is some discussion of One Disease, but it's mostly quotes from the founder.	✘ No
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases	No authors have a conflict-of-interest	This is a peer-reviewed medical journal that would likely be WP:MEDRS-compliant.	~ There is a sub-paragraph mention of the "One Disease program in NT" that describes some items that appear to be related to this charity. It does not appear to gover the full charity in-depth, and the relative lack of space appears to not qualify it for WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage.	~ Partial
ABC News (Australia)	~ Much of the content is quotes from the founder, which runs afould of WP:ORGIND. The publisher, ABC News, is a well-established WP:NEWSORG.	ABC News is WP:GREL on RSP.	~ The article states that the organization received a donation and describes its work in NT. Fewer than one-hundred words in the ABC's voice appear to provide coverage of the NGO itself.	~ Partial
Sutherland Sharks Press Release	This is a press release.	This is a press release.	This press release covers the orgainzation's activities.	✘ No
DevEx	? It is not clear that the content on the profile page of this company is independently created, as WP:ORGIND would require.	? Editorial oversight of content is unclear.	This is akin to Bloomberg Profiles (see WP:RSP)	✘ No
Medical Journal of Australia	Multiple authors of the paper note that they are affiliated with One Disease.	It's published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.	The journal article covers a program that was jointly administered by One Disease, Miwatj Health Aboriginal Corporation, and he NT Government Department of Health. The program itself receives significant coverage, but One Disease itself does not.	✘ No
PowerPoint presentation	This bears the logomark of One Disease and it appears to be the case that One Disease was responsible for the creation of the content based upon the cover slide.	This is a self-published source on the company.	This does indeed cover One Disease.	✘ No
ACT Government	? The Australia Capital Territory's government is independent of One Disease. It is not clear who was responsible for the creation of the content, so it is unknown whether this complies with WP:ORGIND.	? It is not clear the extent to which the content receives editorial oversight.	One Disease gets mentioned in one sentence, Sam established One Disease in 2010, a non-profit organisation to systematically eliminate one disease at a time.	✘ No
Table created using {{source assess table}}

• Weak keep I'm trying not to maintain a super-hawkish stance re notability of humanitarian nonprofits, so looking to find the reasons for keeping here. I think if the currently unsourced paragraph on making scabies a notifiable disease could be well cited, that would make for a reasonable claim to substantial impact on the field. Also found this^[1], which while a clearly sympathetic interview, is at least partly analytical and from a solid publication. - Having said that, merging further material to the section at Sam Prince (humanitarian) wouldn't be the end of the world either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access the source immediately (I will try to figure out a way to do so). But, in any case, doesn't WP:NORG require multiple independent RS that have independent content? If it's an interview with the founder, this typically would fail that requirement. And, if the scope of the NGO's activities is less than national or international in scale (i.e. it basically only works in the Northern Territories), wouldn't that still be a failure to meet either necessary condition of WP:NGO? — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteKeep The subject is referenced in multiple reliable national news sources with editorial overview. It is referenced by multiple Government agencies. It is referenced in peer reviewed journals. See here for example. While some of these are weak references, some seem to be quite strong. Aoziwe (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ones, in particular, seem to be quite strong? I've provided a source-by-source analysis above; I'd appreciate if you could list the sources you believe demonstrate this meeting WP:NORG's significant coverage criteria. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mhawk10. Changing my !vote to delete. Actually I now agree with you. The "Crusted Scabies Elimination Program" (CSEP) is (clearly) notable. It is the subject of my "strong" references. All of the good, independent material is about the CSEP, run by One Disease, not about One Disease itself, and N is not inherited. Aoziwe (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a venue for paid promotion. We need to stop rewarding those who try to use it as such. Blow it away. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage includes a paragraph in this study, ABC news article on a "mysterious donation" the organization received, Philanthropy Australia, Global Citizen, Big Ideas Forum. They seem to be cited regularly in the scabies literature. Article doesn't seem so promotional to me that we need WP:TNT here. Rusalkii (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2021 (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.