WP:Articles for deletion/Consumer Watchdog (Botswana)

:{{la|Consumer Watchdog (Botswana)}} ([{{fullurl:Consumer Watchdog (Botswana)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumer Watchdog (Botswana)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Private company, based in Gaborone, with its primary activity appearing to be the publishing (with varying frequency) of a column that promotes consumer knowledge of scams, poor customer service, and the like. While its Wikipedia article reads almost entirely like a mission statement, I have been unsuccessful in finding a record of it "campaigning for legislation," and, indeed, the only mention of it in Mmegi or The Voice I can find is when its own column promotes its own achievements and activities. For quick reference, here is its [http://www.bes.bw/Consumer%20Watchdog/index.htm website], and here ([http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=4&aid=43&dir=2009/January/Friday23 one], [http://www.thevoicebw.com/NEWS/consumer-watchdog-buyers-guide.html two]) are two recent columns credited to the company. (I especially loved [http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=4&aid=114&dir=2007/December/Friday21 this] one, though.)   user:j    (aka justen)   09:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

:Note: Additional rationale for deletion on talk page.   user:j    (aka justen)   10:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  user:j    (aka justen)   10:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep: reasons for deletion are slightly vague, but they all appear to boil down to notability. This group celebrated its second birthday with the president of the country and national press in attendance. In Botswana, the group is clearly notable and has proven notability.

:Note that the proposer of this AFD originally [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consumer_Watchdog_(Botswana)&diff=270832450&oldid=249979609 attempted to speedy the article], which was created a year ago. This apparently was in order to clear the name for use for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consumer_Watchdog_(USA)&diff=270838261&oldid=270836183 his own new article] on the "actually-notable California "Consumer Watchdog" organization". The US organization of the same name may be "actually-notable" in California, but it's no more notable to the rest of the planet's English speakers than the one in Botswana: see WP:WORLDVIEW. MuffledThud (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::To imply that I speedied an article in order "to clear the name" is a pretty glaring assumption of bad faith (in addition to just being plain wrong). Nevertheless, some verifiable, reliable sources for your assertion of notability would be helpful.   user:j    (aka justen)   10:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• weak delete per WP:N. I have trouble finding reliable secondary sources (though this may well be due to a language barrier). The article is also filled with weasel words, which suggests a conflict of interest. Firestorm (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added some more detail and references on links to govt and industry, and edited for NPOV. MuffledThud (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::Neither of the links satisfy wp:rs as best as I can tell. The first link is just a page on the parent company's website. The second very briefly mentions that someone from the organization spoke at an event. Inclusion requires multiple, verifiable, reliable sources that acknowledge the organization's notability.   user:j    (aka justen)   21:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep As per WP:CSB standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CSB. It seems obvious that an article about a California based organization would quite naturally have a greater number of English sources available... and that an article about a similar Botswana company might just be a little tougher to pin down. It is reasonable to expect that sources, either harcopy or Non-English, [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Consumer+Watchdog+%22%2C+Botswana&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7DVXA quite likely exist]. The article deserves to be tagged for expansion and further sourcing so as to improve wiki. WP:Cleanup is the solution. Deletion should be taken off the table. And kudos to User:MuffledThud for his continued diligent efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

::I'm sorry, I don't see how linking to a list of Google search results for the name of the company proves that reliable sourcing "quite likely exists." I've gone through pages and pages of those results, trying desperately to find reliable sourcing, and I haven't found a one. Combating systemic bias is one thing. Throwing any sort of notability and verifiability requirements out the window for private companies based outside the United States is quite another.   user:j    (aka justen)   08:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

:::There is no WP:DEADLINE that it be immediately fixed because of how it looked when you first nominated it for deletion... specially since an interested editor is actively working to adress your concerns. Since the company IS outside the United States, do we need input from a Botswana editor who can then find and provide the non-english sources for you to then tramslate? Or might the Botswana editor wish to speedy the Consumer Watchdog (USA) stub because it cannot be sourced in Botswanan. Pardon the hyperbole. We need to have a larger view than southern California. Keeping the article and improving it, improves wiki. Tagging it for sources and cleanup improves wiki. Tossing it in the trash bin rather than allowing it to be fixed, does not improve wiki. User:MuffledThud has made some great strides in the few hours he's been toiling. Allowing him to continue, improves wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

::::Michael, I appreciate your trying to save the article, but it is, at this point, still a non-notable promotional article. The fact remains that even with the "active work" being done on the article, it still lacks a single verifiable, reliable source establishing its notability. The issue is not a lack of sources in English. Botswana has a thriving English media. The company that is the subject of this article publishes their website and their columns exclusively in English. You can throw systemic bias, my ignorance, California, or whatever else you would like at the wall to see what sticks to try to save the article. The fact remains every indication is pointing to this being a non-notable private company that does not meet our criteria for inclusion.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::Let him continue. Simple. Wiki has no WP:DEADLINE and if he is successful, wiki is improved. If he is unsuccessful, the article can easily be tossed back on the trash bin in a few weeks. On a different note, I often find AfD's to be of service in removing that which has no merit, but find the ticking count-down clock of five days to be a tad arbitrary if something has the possibility of being improved to thus improve wiki. With respects, and in appreciation of your own wanting to improve Wiki, the article had never been tagged for "more sources" or "cleanup" or expand", or any such.... nothing that might have flagged it for editors to pay specific attention to any of its needs. The first tag it ever receieved, almost 2 years after its creation, was your CSD speedy. User:MuffledThud took that as the impetus to work on it rather than have it tossed. Kudos for him. Might we let him continue his efforts now that the article has gained his attention? Yes, its a pity that it sat for 2 years virtually untouched... but now that it is being worked on, wouldn't it be prudent to see where he is going to go with it? Letting him work is a win-win for wiki. If he fails, it goes. But if he's successful.... a true win for wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added six more refs, and found the group also hosts a radio show. MuffledThud (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2009 (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.