Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Future Society

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. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

India Future Society

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

This was originally tagged for deletion under WP:G11. I did not feel that this was explicitly spam, but there are a number of problems with this article, making it unsalvagable. First is a lack of notablity. This organization was founded in May 2013, and I cannot find reliable sources supporting its notability. Secondly, the section "Fields of Focus" seems to be entirely original research speculation and/or possible copyright violations (the "Cyborg" subsection, for example, is a mishmash of copying from various websites. All in all, I can't see this article being kept on Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I am the author of the article. My organization IFS is a startup company and now its also recognized by the Indian government. IFS definitely has future activities planned and they will be included in the article soon after accomplishment. My organization aims to spread awareness about the future technologies and their use to increase human capacities. (Please go through our website: http://indiafuturesociety.org/) At this point of time in India there is not much acceptance of such technologies among the common mass. So our initiative will create big difference. Its my request to Wikipedia and you all,please don't nip IFS article in the bud. I assure you it will bloom soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoama (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – looks like a PR piece written by the organization itself. A Google search only shows pages posted by or referring to pages posted by the IFS itself (its Facebook page, Twitter, Linked-in, etc.). The citations in the article are not about IFS, but about subjects that IFS is interested in. Before it is eligible for coverage in Wikipedia, IFS will need to become the focus of coverage by reliable 3rd-party publications, which will happen as soon as IFS organizes a convention on futures studies, raises and directs the spending of large sums of funds for technological research, publishes a notable magazine with a sizable readership, etc. But so far, it doesn't show up as even a blip on the media's radar. Compare World Future Society. The Transhumanist 22:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 23:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, this is the third iteration of the article, previous two articles have been deleted for G11/G12. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 00:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The purpose of creation of page is to influence more people about term like Transhumanism in India. It's sort of promotional page but for Emerging Technology and concept like Transhumanism and Longevity. And first and only Article on Wiki from Indian background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.104.103 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Sign added by Tito☸Dutta 18:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)— 115.240.104.103 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Uh, a promotional page is a reason to delete, not to keep. GregJackP Boomer! 06:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But page is more for information and awareness side which sound very little like Promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.104.103 (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content style and phrasing are suspicious. And it looks like the article was cobbled together by some copyright violation, such as here and [1]. Didn't look any further, though, but I think it's enough to illustrate the point. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current content of article does not breaking any law. So article will be good to keep there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.241.162.159 (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC) — 115.241.162.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. The article's creator, as well as a couple IPs, have blanked large sections of this article since the nomination and many of the above comments. Here is a diff to how the article originally appeared: [2]. Even without the various copypaste sections, it still does not address notability issues. Singularity42 (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent some time trying to bring it into line, but ended with the opinion that it was unsalvageable and unquestionably promotional. Now I realise I should have speedied it in the first place. Deb (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Promotional/Copyvio/G11 article has no place on Wikipedia. Whispe ring 03:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just a promo puff piece, and sounds like it gets removed frequently... Advise the author adds once there is something notable about his company/org Jtowler (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An investigation of the Telegraph article reveals zero mention of the organisation; suffice to say, none of the sources make any sort of coverage on the subject. In addition, the article's content is replete with puffery that scraping past G11 is somewhat surprising. Socking doesn't help. Fails WP:ORG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:59, 9 September 2013 (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.