Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile Foundation

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 delete. The notability of this organization (per WP:GNG) was not adequately demonstrated. Consensus is to delete. ‑Scottywong| [yak] || 03:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Smile Foundation (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)

Does not meet WP:ORG. The sources are all routine announcements, name drops, or comments from those associated with this organization. At least one of the sources doesn't even mention this organization at all("Cochlear implant surgery....") These things do not establish notability, and I could not find significant coverage. This article just tells about what the organization does and does not summarize any significant coverage as articles should. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't find E-learning and Training of Underprivileged youth name-drops of the superficial kind. This venture is in 26 states helping children. Lot of community service happening here. Whiteguru (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteguru Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good works. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, but the purpose of the Smile Foundation is substantiated in the references. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia articles must do more than state the existence of the subject and what it does. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Smile Foundation is one of the most prominent non-profit organizations in Asia[1] as well as one of the biggest NGOs in India which reaches 15,00,000 children and families annually and runs 400 live welfare projects on education, healthcare, livelihood, and women empowerment, in over 2000 remote and rundown areas across 25 states of India. The foundation has thus far provided education to more than 2,00,000 children and has assisted hundreds of families affected by floods in different parts of the country. The purpose is not to show their good works but to show the significance of the subject. The foundation has been covered by various mainstream media nationally as well as internationally, including The Guardian, Businessworld, Mint (newspaper)[2][3][4][5] and there are more references available online.John shibo (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: John shibo (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

The first(which you duplicated) and second sources you link here are brief mentions each with a with a quote from the founder of the organization; the last is based almost entirely on an interview with said founder. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should tag it for better sourcing rather than deleting as there are more sources available online.John shibo (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If those sources are like the ones you have already provided, they won't help. You say that you work for this organization; have you been tasked with editing its article? 331dot (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you read it right but I have not edited this page and have put all the changes that were to be made to its talk page only as per the guidelines. As for its sourcing, I am not an expert in identifying which sources would work and which would not but a Google search of it shows it being discussed in various leading publications.John shibo (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The organization is definitely notable. I did a quick google news search, and it and its work has been repeatedly been covered by major Indian national and regional dailies and magazines including The Hindu, Indian Express which are even in WP considered good RS. The organization is repeatedly mentioned in top list of charities to donate for any relief program by major news org. One can always argue that could be due to persistent marketing efforts by the NGO, but it definitely seems to have worked and its meets all the criteria on WP:NGO to be kept here on WP. If the issue is with WP:NPOV tone, then the article needs to be re-written and edited and not deleted. - Roller26 (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roller26 Could you offer some of these sources? The ones I could find and in the article currently are not appropriate for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some links within a year's time [6] [7] [8]. List of org to donate to or org's doing notable work [9] [10]. The NGO's data and studies are often regularly quoted by all media houses with proper references in their articles. Also a number of top Indian corporate houses often tie up with Smile for some charity drive. (Various articles about those too). -- Roller26 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of those sources, they amount to little more than press releases with a quote from an organization representative. They do not represent significant coverage and only suggest that any article about this organization would only serve to tell the world about the good work that they do. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, this research paper [11] studied organisational capacity component of the MFS II country evaluations with focus being Smile Foundation, India. This article [12] by a magazine published by Stanford University Center talks about NGO Leadership Development with giving significant coverage to Smile Foundation. Also the Foundation's own website [13] lists 890 print media coverage from 2003 to 15 April 2020. While I will agree most of them will not be significant, or published by reliable, secondary or independent sources, if in source assessment table all of them fail the notability test, I am all for deleting the article. -- Roller26 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Roller26 and other contributors. I would suggest, the article may be rewritten rather than deleting it. If we were to delete, we might as well consider many more articles in WP which are similar for deletion. What I would suggest is a rewrite or reference it with better sources. SaiP (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SaiP See other stuff exists. That other problematic articles have not been addressed does not mean this one shouldn't be. This article has been tagged as needing sources since April and COI editors have been here to promote the charity. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, current sources are all routine announcements, name drops, or comments from those associated with this organization and I'm not seeing anything that satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Also, WP:WWIN applies. GSS ^💬 20:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GSS, refer to the above sources that I linked, especially the research and the magazine article. -- Roller26 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: References are general press releases. Thus, it does need better references, if not found I suggest to move this page to draft. It can be moved to main space after qualifying notability. I'll try to search for independent reliable sources and add them. -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One person contacted me to put here a 'Keep' vote. Hence it is a clear indication of paid article and i added "Undisclosed paid" tag. Now come to the article, It is looking like an advertisement. Routine coverage. It is also a case of WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD.Priyanjali singh (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero evidence of any notability Spiderone 10:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, I am not sure what research you did before casting the !vote because certain editors arguments on the line of WP:ORGDEPTH are understandable, yours is not. In the above discussion itself, following references have been made 1. research paper 2. article by a magazine published by Stanford University Center 3. own website lists 890 print media coverage from 2003 to 15 April 2020. I hope you go through these and make a more reasoned !vote. Roller26 (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To any reviewer; please keep in mind that at least one member of the organization seem to be contributing to this discussion and another user has said they were asked to come here. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion noted, additions to Talk:Smile_Foundation page noted. Blocked users and socks. My, my. Vote is not changed. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:02, 16 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.