Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wokai

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. ffm 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wokai

While the article and references demonstrate the notability of microfinance and the reality of poverty in rural China, the online references do NOT demonstrate in any way the notability (or even verify the activities) of the subject of the article. Specifically, the only ones that discuss the organization itself (at least, in English) are the organization's own pages. The other references (New York Times, etc.) do not mention Wokai at all. The main contributor's edits to Wikipedia seem to be very narrow, so there is no track record of identifying important but thinly referenced organizations that would lead to giving the benefit of the doubt. Bongomatic (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep hello, additional external references from authorities on poverty in rural china that directly reference wokai were omitted from the references list. There is some debate whether these should be included in the revised posting. A list of these references is now posted on the wokai talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDguac (talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KDguac, please see my comments to you on your talk page. For everyone else, I would simply note that those references do not reflect, even in aggregate, "significant coverage in reliable sources" as suggested in WP:GNG. Bongomatic (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I have to agree that the coverage in reliable secondary sources amounts to passing mentions at best. Thus Wokai fails the primary notability guideline. Huon (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- Wokai microloans are by definition very small ($50-$100) and most impactful to an audience in a remote part of the world (rural China). Because references cited are both domestic and foreign, the author asks if additional consideration of the following excerpt from WP:ORG is appropriate in weighing the magnitude of the media footprint: “The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability.” KDguac (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what sources on an organization that invests American money in China to call "foreign". Anyway, I don't think I've seen a source mention Wokai that's not intimately linked to Chinese-American charities and non-profit organizations, making for a similarly specialized audience. Huon (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If proper sources cannot be found, but I would caution the nominator to restrict his nomination comments to the article itself and not the person who wrote it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Notability & maybe even WP:ADVERT. TheAsianGURU (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 21 September 2008 (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.