Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balochistan Rural Support Programme (2nd nomination)

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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balochistan Rural Support Programme

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

Previous AfD rescinded by nominator (me) because of putative RS provided (which do not hold up well) as a result of WP:CANVASSING violations by an editor now banned for WP:SOCK violations. (~~All~~ Most votes to keep on previous AfD were in fact editors canvassed by the sole author of this page.)

Insufficient RS to satisfy GNG. There are a couple vague references to the program in papers on economic development, but nothing that talks about the program itself directly or substantially. Sometimes these references are simply the inclusion of the "BRSP" acronym in the glossary. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a relief organization working in a part of the world where sourcing is very difficult (WP:INDAFD) thus what sources we have carry extra weight. I agree with the nom that WP:GNG is lacking here but we can use some PRIMARY for basic information about the org and the secondaries provide some information about activities they are involved in. They are mentioned in two .gov sources [1][2], passing mentions true, but noticed by the Dept. of State and US Embassy. They won an award which was officiated by the Prime Minister of India.[3] In the context of Pakistani NGO relief organizations they appear to be notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the third link is clearly a press release, and the article on the organization giving the awards (Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization) is barely more than a stub created by an SPA. the first two links seem like the sort of thing that one might cite WP:NOTINHERITED about. Like the economic development papers, they mention the name of the organization, and little or nothing else. I'm open to the idea that we might need to be a bit less strict than normal because of the nature of the area and availability of published materials, but i just don't see anything useful there. I wouldn't be opposed to userfying, but the creator/sole editor is indeffed for socking. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple factual announcement they won a prize, WP:PRIMARY is permissible unless there is good reason to doubt it. Further confirmation here[4] (pg. 19). Inheritance is not meant to blind us from looking at the specifics of each case, if the Prime Minister of a country is associated with the organization giving a prize, it is obviously more significant than if Aunt Beatrice gives a gold star, it weighs on the overall decision about notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The very first page of a Google News archive search displays significant coverage in relation to several separate incidents: a highly notable kidnapping and beheading of aid workers; a protest over alleged discrimination; as well as a broken link to a Dawn story about a call for more doctors. I invite nominator to click on the provided link and see for himself, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be an article about the kidnapping, but the kidnapping has garnered a great deal more press than the organization itself (which is not even that much, maybe two articles?). that also seems like WP:NOTINHERITED is relevant. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 20:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, inheritance is not meant to blind us from looking at all the facts of a case. Nobody is claiming this 1E is the only reason this organization is notable, it's part of the reason. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage in reliable independent sources to merit inclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Provides enough coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgininfatuation (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 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.