Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workers Development Union (2nd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Workers Development Union}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Workers_Development_Union_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Workers Development Union}})

WP:NPASR applies.

I don't think, [http://www.thehindu.com/2005/12/19/stories/2005121901860300.htm a single HT piece] confers any notability to the organisation. ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural Close The AFD was open for 21 days from 20th August to 11 September 2018 and was closed as No Consensus here on 11 September 2018 .It is being reopened on 11 September.While no one has nothing against a renomination but feel it should not reopened immediately after just 1 days.If one is unhappy with the closure they can discuss with closing admin or take it WP:DRV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• :{{u|Pharaoh of the Wizards}}, The closing admin noted {{tq|No prejudice against renomination}}.Sorta NPASR. ∯WBG^converse 15:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I have removed all references to the own website that were used as source. Then I removed a passing mention that was used as source. Then I removed two non-independent (Jesuit) sources, that were in fact identical albeit in different languages. So now there is an article what is largely unsourced, with the exception of one part of their work. No sopurces about the organisation itself and the tone and style of the article are still promotional. The Banner talk 17:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Delete an article about a subject with no notability. I searched and could not find SIGCOV. I removed along promotional section of the article that had a dozen or so CN tags. What's left is basically nothing. This AFD is appropriate, as the last AfD had no logical keep votes. It was all SOURCESMUSTEXIST and ILIKEIT, as someone pointed out there. The first keep vote it had said "well they have 42 staff, they must be notable." Thus the last Afd made no policy-driven keep arguments. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

{{ping|Ritchie333}} can you please take a look a this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

::I said "no prejudice against renomination", so I'm ambivalent about this. I have no strong opinions on whether the article stays or goes. That said, going immediately to a second AfD is mildly disruptive - have all the participants in the first AfD being pinged? If not, why not? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

:::{{u|Ritchie333}}, I think your statement was really ambiguous.A closing administrator cannot have a prejudice against a renomination, shall it occur after a considerable period of time and going by a literary reading, it is sort of unnecessary.To my eyes, it thus resembled WP:NPASR.Mildly disruptive, probably.But, given the quality of the debate from the other camp, I don't bother any. Pinging {{ping|GSS|Peterkingiron}}-Since, you've participated in the previous AfD. (Jzsj is blocked and has got a Twinkle notification, at any case.....).At any case, some fresh eyes will be good enough:) ∯WBG^converse 11:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

:::Also {{ping|Atlantic306}}:-Since, you've participated in the previous AfD.∯WBG^converse 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Just like the previos AfD, this one should be closed as delete unless policy based arguments are made in favor of retention. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Delete I stand by my previous vote that a Google search for "Workers Development Union" yields 58 results and none of them provide anything more than a passing mention including the soruces provided above by the creator and most of them are not even reliable so fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Food and Agriculture Organization specialized agency of the United Nations has devoted a chapter to this Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh with regard to there success in working with the Kurubas in marketing wool.It has also written about this along with similar success cases from Kyrgyzstan ,Mongolia and Argentina .[http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1283e/i1283e.pdf FAO ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND HEALTH pg 17-28 ] . ''Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh (SAS), an NGO has developed a pilot project to help Kuruba women in Belgaum district in Karnataka to make and sell products made from the wool of the Deccani sheep."As per [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rajiv_Kumar3/publication/273001037_Trace_element_content_in_plants_soil_and_wool_of_sheep_in_Uttarada_region%27/links/54fd76ed0cf270426d12649e/Trace-element-content-in-plants-soil-and-wool-of-sheep-in-Uttarada-region.pdf pg 44]".Have added references. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep with the addition of reliable sources coverage above together with the Hindu Atlantic306 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. I haven't taken the time to review this fully (hence, weak), but I did look at the sources added by Pharaoh of the Wizards.
• {{Cite web |title=The Hindu : Karnataka / Belgaum News : A big, overseas market for coarse wool is waiting to be tapped |author= |work=thehindu.com |date= |access-date=19 September 2018 |url= https://www.thehindu.com/2005/12/20/stories/2005122001920200.htm}} talks about "A Belgaum-based NGO", but doesn't mention the subject by name.
• {{Cite web |title= |author= |work=fao.org |date= |access-date=19 September 2018 |url= http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1283e/i1283e01.pdf}} also talks about an NGO, but not by name.
• {{Cite web |title= |author= |work=researchgate.net |date= |access-date=19 September 2018 |url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273001028}} again, no mention by name.
• {{Cite book |title=FAO Animal Production and Health Paper |author= |access-date=19 September 2018 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Xiqk12Lu9BIC&pg=20|isbn= 9789251064535|year= 2010}} Unfortunately, I was unable to see the specific page cited.

:So, I don't see how any of those contribute to WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

::Changing my opinion to keep, per Pharaoh of the Wizards's explaination about the naming confusion. I'd still like to see more sources, and especially sources with a wider audience, but I think we've got enough to pass WP:ORG, if just barely. WP:UE notwithstanding, we might do better to change the title to Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh, since that seems to be the only way it's referred to in sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• {{ping|RoySmith}} .The organisation is referred by its Indian name {{tq|Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh}} in the 3 The Hindu refrences not by Workers Development Union and Food and Agriculture Organization does refer to it by its name {{tq|Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh}} in this [http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1283e/i1283e01.pdf pg 20].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• I was aware of that in my first nomination. But the sources you are adding just add more of the same to just one part of their work. But unfortunately, they say nothing in depth about the organisation. The Banner talk 20:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per the changes and high quality sources added by Pharaoh of the Wizards, which push this over WP:ORG ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.