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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TheSaugatDevkota has been blocked as a sock, and their input has been disregarded. Sandstein 09:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better Chitwan (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)

Fails WP:NORG. No independent reliable sources. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hy usedtobecool, I am new at wikipedia. Can you explain me why the artcile is being listed for deletion. my intension isnot promote any brand. I just read some non profit organization wikipedia artciles they are also same as mine, can you elaborate why it's being listed for deletion. regards Saugat — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheSaugatDevkota, I have answered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central College of Vocational Training Pvt. Ltd. WP:Otherstuffexists is not a valid argument, we need to remove other bad articles, not add more to the pile. Please review WP:NORG and read WP:AFD for details on why your article may qualify for deletion, and how to participate in the deletion discussion, respectively. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be lots of coverage in multiple sources, though I cant read them. Our coverage of Nepal is very weak. I think we should keep this.Rathfelder (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder "...though I cant read them."—I would bet that is by design. A decent chunk of the booming internet "news" business is in English, even in Nepal. This article has not one (;tldr read this which is in English, and is used in the article), even though among the Nepali sources it's got refspam fitting every description.

Looking at the current revision (permalink), [11] is the homepage of a local FM station, [8] and [24] are allevents.in, I don't know what that is, everyone can see for themselves. [4] and [19] are from Better Chitwan itself, even those don't have much in the way of content. [7] is routine coverage from a reliable source about the organisation's annual meeting. [6] is its clone in non-RS, [5] is its clone in a local paper's online portal (lists 3 editors and 4 reporters), [21], [22] and [23] are the same story about flower-farming done by Saagar Karki (RS, spam, local-RS). Only [20] a "news website" with one editor connects the flower-farming with the organisation. [18] is from the same source as [5] and all it says is "Better Chitwan organised a program on World Wetlands Day". It goes on about the value of wetlands, but that's all it has to say about the organisation. [9] is in English, [15] is the same kind of story in an worse source but with 91 students, [14] is the same in a worse source but with school bags instead of winter caps. [16] is again one of those internet "news website"s with a registration number and nothing else, the content is an ad about upcoming event (it's presented as news, but it's advert). [12] and [13] are literally the same kind of sources, same kind of coverage, also the same story. [17] goes nowhere for me (stops at the site's homepage; site is for a local FM station), [2] is a photo feature from what looks like a legit local paper; the content is "Better Chitwan [did the gardening stuff]" and nothing else. [10] looks like a legit local paper too, the content is "Better Chitwan organised a program called "Wow woman and her story"." The coverage about the organisation is literally just that. [3] is in English, and a highly recommended representative reading. It gives the exact taste of what I meant when I said the coverage of Better Chitwan stops at a sentence, while the story goes on about something else. It is also a representative of the mushrooming adsense and news business in Nepal. It also gives a taste of advert-like content in these "news" sites which one can tell just by reading them, that there is no way that literally anyone couldn't get published in them anything that they wanted. [1] is the only source that is anywhere near acceptable. It's from an RS and is about half a SIGCOV. Though it is from an email address with a name and picture, the fact that it's in a national paper and has content that could be added to Wikipedia does mean something. If there were one additional decent SIGCOV, an unambiguously independent one, that might even be enough for a stub, considering it is Nepal.

There are two issues here. One is the booming internet spam/news-site market in Nepal. There are literally dozens of so called "news portals" where one could get anything published. If we started allowing them for notability considerations, we'd really go to shit as a credible source of knowledge worth knowing, real soon (We already allow a lot of them for WP:V even in GAs). Second is the fact that, in Nepal, NGOs are more likely to be businesses than philanthropy. Being on Wikipedia still means something. We should not be legitimising NGOs that have not been legitimised by RSes in the country, or we'll only contribute to the corruption in the "philanthropy in the third world" business.

These are the facts on what the sources are and what the sources have. The rest is up to the community. It is taxing to fight this fight when there isn't even one other person to verify the claims I make to back me up on my analysis, and after all this work, the community still has only my word for it. So, this will probably be my last comment on this AFD. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I had added many citations from reliable sources like Ekantipur, OSNepal, and many more. And there is no intension to advertise any brand, is it still subject of deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaugatDevkota (talk • contribs) 08:57, 5 June 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.