Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness

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. Sandstein 21:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

queried speedy delete as spam Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Discussion here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete thanks for the ping. Nonprofit spam -- all the non=SYN links are from the organization; should not be mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be multiple mentions in assorted independent sources across the world in the last week. The article isnt very wonderful but the organisation appears to be notable.Rathfelder (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So you added content based on two more very bad (SPS to yet other organizations) diff. argh. Jytdog (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPS? Rathfelder (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS. this larger set of edits added yet more crappy sources and did nothing to remove the pollution. Horrible editing that made the page worse. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is written like advertising copy, but the organisation does have enough coverage to satisfy notability. Atchom (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that is hand-waving and unhelpful. Please cite three truly independent sources with significant discussion of the organization. That is what we need per WP:NCORP. Right now, there are zero independent sources with significant discussion of the organization cited in this page. There is lots of SPS, some passing mentions, and some that don't mention the organization at all. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self published sources means what it says. Not sources published by other organisations. There are plenty of reports in newspapers about the activities of the organisation. It's clearly supported by the World Health Organization and has attracted support from significant people.Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources by collaborators, about the collaboration, are still SPS and are not independent and do nothing to show notability. I remain interested to see the "plenty of reports in newspapers" that have substantial discussion of the organization, You haven't cited any. What you are doing here is hand-waving, not bringing strong sources that show this passes WP:NCORP. And you have left all the spam in place. Terrible editing that has nothing to do with the mission of WP and is 100% promotional. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete A worthy organization, but the majority of sources are linked to the organization itself. Eveything else is just glancing mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curdle (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 19:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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.