Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senang Hati Foundation (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The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure), the article in the Jakarta Post provides sufficient notability in my opinion. Pixelface (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senang Hati Foundation

Non-notable non-profit organization in Bali. Pixelface (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It appears to be a relativly well known organization in its region. I found quite a bit of information on it with a quick Google search. -Icewedge (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the typical press release, I couldn't find anything on Google to verify the notability of the organization. That might be attributed to the fact that it's a foreign organization, however.--TBC !?! 05:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — this would appear to be another bad-faith nomination targeting an article I started for the purpose of harassment and retaliation. Recuse. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good faith nomination. I don't see evidence this foundation is notable or why Wikipedia should have an article about it. --Pixelface (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that this is a bad faith nomination. Pixelface clearly isn't associated with Senang Hati (impersonator), the vandal, and there are some legitimate quality issues concerning the article.--TBC !?! 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jack, could you or some other editor explain how this article establishes notability or has the potential to show notability? Ursasapien (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~100 English GHits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and another ~150 in Indonesian (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL); no reliable, independent, non-trivial sources among them. cab (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An appropriate guideline for this article is WP:CORP. And the current six external references plus the official homepage all are not reliable, independent sources - therefore my vote. I'm sure this is a very good cause and they should get any publicity they can - but Wikipedia articles only are there to document any notability they may have once they do have it. I'm not convinced the article couldn't be kept though, just because google can't find coverage doesn't mean none exist. So if any of the editors knows about coverage about it - maybe some off-line Indonesian newspaper articles (not press releases/advertisements or trivial mentions, but by independent journalists) - they should say so. Else the article can be re-created once such sources get available. --Minimaki (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - no evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any sources granting notability. Some smallish mentions, and I might be persuaded if we have more of them, but at the moment I do not believe it has notability. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Has a few links but they are not reliable, independent sources and seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how you can call mentions such as this or this "trivial". -Icewedge (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also take this article(translated by google). It is in dutch but it is about the foundation and is over 2,500 words long. Explain why a 2,500 word document about the foundation is "trivial or incidental coverage". -Icewedge (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First ones a partner, the second a bodybuilding site? and the third another partner. I fail to how you can consider those reliable secondary sources. Perhaps you should explain why there are no mentions of this organization, over the past 7 years in 4,500 news sources--Hu12 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in WP:V does it say that non profit orginizations are not reliable sources. As for the body building site, I was just using it to refute your claim that there are no non trivial mentions which, as per my three examples, is wrong. -Icewedge (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve through regular editing per WP:AfD. This organization assists the ably challenged in Bali, arguably in the center of a technologically challenged part of the world. I hardly expect a non-profit-type enterprises doing this kind of work to have a functional press office let alone a computer. Many non-profits in "first-world" countries, like the United States, have been around just as long, done incredible work but also aren't making news headlines as that isn't always the goal and possibly seen as unhelpful - they simply do the work needed while simultaneously finding ways to address underlying issues. Also I would expect most of the verifiable coverage towards our standards to be buried in grants from foundations and governments which have their own technology challenges so it's of little surprise to me that this organization isn't written up by the New York Times. I also see no reason to doubt the references provided thus far. Are we claiming this is a hoax? If so it seems to be a complex and global one with unclear objectives. It would do well for the article editors to research what makes this organization unique and get the lede to spell that out quickly and clearly. Then some understanding of what they do and how as well as the history would help. Benji boi 22:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure they have a worthy cause, however this is an encyclopedia, which has inclusion criterion. Notability is not synonymous with "importance.". Therefore Content that does not meet the inclusion criterion is removed.--Hu12 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He never said the inclusion criteria are synonymous with importance... He is giving an explanation as to why there is less coverage of the group in U.S. and online media than orginizations of similar importance in the United States. -Icewedge (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, and I could have been more clear on this, my point is that organizations that likely would be considered noteworthy in "first-world" countries also don't focus on self-promoting, sometimes due to resources, sometimes politics or cultural concerns or for any other reasons. I see an organization in a less developed country as having an even further uphill battle to meet requires unknown to them. We are dealing with language barriers as well as sourcing issues. I'm not hearing that an editor thinks this is a hoax or fiction, simply that it needs better sourcing, writing to help explain the subject and its noteworthiness. Benji boi 04:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I have visited their centre; I helped repair their roof. They do have a few computers, but they have very limited English skills and have no idea what a press release might be. Many of them have never been to school at all. They are focused on their art,^[1] crafts and events that aid-types help them organize. They have the attention of aid organizations and arrange the connection to individuals in need. Many of their members hardly ever left the back room in a family compound until someone from Senang Hati showed-up and gave them a wheelchair and friendship (a back room with a dirt floor and no toilet). They have no idea that I started this article or any concept of what this site even is. They are mentioned regularly in local papers (in Indonesian, which I'm rather limited at). —Jack Merridew 10:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've had a look around and found quite a few references here and there, most notably a rather good article in the Jakarta Post. My feeling is that the Jakarta Post article establishes (sufficient) notability when Benjiboi's comments are taken into account and you consider the number of references to the foundation from other sources. I'm sure that more references will emerge through print publications and through translations of some of the other online materials. - Bilby (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination after seeing the article from the Jakarta Post. --Pixelface (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2008 (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.