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.  Sandstein  19:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NASHI[edit]

NASHI (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)

Local charitable organization that fails the notability criteria of WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 21:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Part of series of flawed Canadian charity group nominations from this editor. In a number of Afds, I see the recurring meme that these are "local" organizations. In what sense is NASHI local? It's based in Saskatchewan, Canada -- all things must be based somewhere -- to helps girls and oppose human trafficking in Ukraine. Is it "local" because it's not American -- is that the intended perjorative, here? As for WP:ORG the references on the article as well as a few others one can find view Gnews indicates to me that it's sufficiently notable. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it "local" because it's not American -- is that the intended perjorative, here? Do you have an actual argument or just more bad-faith assumptions masquerading as questions? --Calton | Talk 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*A mass series of WP:POINTy nominations targeting User:Neelix-created articles, as stated as User_talk:Kelly#Neelix. Opposing on procedural grounds alone. This is apparently retribution over an issue now at this ANI thread as well as Neelix's editing around Tara Teng -- neither of which are related to the charitable organizations he is now taking to Afd. Per WP:BOOMERANG, it is Kelly's disruptive editing that is now a problem, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Only two of the nine sources load for me. If the rest are as flimsy as those, there's a legit problem with the notability of the article, regardless of who created it. Judging by the titles, several sources are routine event listings which aren't really great for this sort of thing. The local nature of the sources is also a bad sign. Searching for fresh sources, I found nothing. The name is also used by an unrelated Russian nationalist group of some kind, but that's fairly easy to filter out. Grayfell (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are a bit of a shambles here. That might require some cleanup before notability can be judged.-- Elmidae 08:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a cached version of the CBC interview, you've got a big piece in the Star Phoenix, a Global News piece here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is frustrating, since it's a cached overview of a local radio clip. The second one is already in the article, and seems very flimsy. The third is useful, but it's an interview with a person affiliated with NASHI discussing human trafficking in Canada, not independent coverage of NASHI. Being active outside of Canada does make this technically an International org per WP:NGO, but the sources are so thin that more coverage of the actual scope would be helpful to get this away from being a technically/barely situation. A conference attended by 900 people is pretty small in scope. Grayfell (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the abstract on the CBC interview leaves no doubt that it meets the standard for a reliable source: "Sheila sat down with The Morning Edition's Madeline Kotzer to talk about the work Saskatoon group Nashi is doing in the Ukraine to fight the trafficking of children for sex." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source, but not for notability. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have it [sort of] backwards. Of course a published/broadcast interview conducted by and published/broadcast by a reliable source counts towards notability, so long as it's not conducted by and/or published/broadcast by the subject or someone with a direct connection to the subject. An interview of the subject by a reliable source is coverage of the subject. That's precisely what we need for notability. But apart from notability, because an article subject's own words are a primary source, interviews run into WP:RS problems for all the reasons at WP:PRIMARY. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A local group. I'm sure they do good work and yes, their focus is another country. But ultimately, it's still a small local group. --Calton | Talk 16:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - international organization aiding victims of human trafficking in Ukraine. Article here in Ukrainian about the recovery house ("Maple Leaf Centre") they built in Lviv. There seems to be a lot of vaguaries going on - the Ukrainian article doesn't even mention they're from Canada (oddly referred to as "foreigners of Ukrainian origin" twice) and their own info on the house makes no mention of it being in Lviv or even Ukraine. However, the building in the photo is the same. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The sources linked above, in the article, and the following links look to satisfy WP:ORG: [paywalled] "Human Trafficking and Media Myths: Federal Funding, Communication Strategies, and Canadian Anti-Trafficking Programs" in Canadian Journal of Communication 39(3), Leader-Post, Archdiocese of Canada newsletter... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since when was a church newsletter sufficient to pass WP:GNG, as per the previous keep? The keep vote before points out that the sources cited don't even support each other. All of these references are hyperlocal, and that the author felt they needed to include a couple of sentences about a "45-minute event" they ran years ago strongly points to failing our notability criteria rather dismally. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Drover's Wife: I see you took exactly 3 minutes since your previous AfD !vote to look at the article, conduct a thorough search for sources, evaluate other people's arguments, make a judgment about notability, and type up this wholesale dismissal. You say "since when was a church newsletter sufficient to pass WP:GNG, as per the previous keep?", as though I didn't also include a whole bunch of other sources and reference links mentioned elsewhere. Also, even dismissing that single source as "a church newsletter" sounds like you're talking about some small town church-in-a-barn. L'Osservatore Romano is a church newsletter, too. The Orthodox Church would not, of course, have the readership of the Vatican's publication, but it's not "hyperlocal" -- it's the national church publication. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your newspaper source is about an unrelated author, with a very brief, passing mention that she donated to the organisation once. The church newsletter still doesn't meet the bar of a reliable source to establish notability. That you're having to grasp at such desperate straws makes the case for deletion in itself. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The sources are defeating me. All the Saskatoonhomepage links are broken and apparently unrepairable, since that site has no search functionality. Of the other 5 refs, only 2 work, and I can't rustle up working links for the others. Currently would argue for Delete based on absence of verifiable sources, unless some enterprising editor can solve this quickly - if all these were accessible, Keep would seem justified.-- Elmidae 10:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Elmidae: Sources you cannot access are still valid sources (WP:SOURCEACCESS), and the current state of the article and the sources aren't relevant to AfDs based on notability. All that matters is that the sources exist somewhere, even if you can't access them. There's some necessary gray area and exceptions sometimes, but in general a citation to a broken URL is more or less the same as if the article creator used offline sources that are not verifiable online. As long as there's not a compelling reason to believe the sources don't exist (that they're made up), that is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources are unlikely to be made up, and thus one might treat them as 'offline' for practical purposes (a generous interpretation of WP:SOURCEACCESS). The problem is that there's no way to check whether these sources do establish notability, i.e. constitute substantial treatment by third parties etc., or are just passing mentions or in-house press statements. That doesn't normally come up with bona fide offline sources, but it's a distinct possibility with these. IMO if sources of such uncertain pedigree can't be accessed and assessed, they may as well be absent, and don't help in establishing notability.-- Elmidae 16:59, 23 November 2015 (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.