Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efiwe.org

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. SoWhy 10:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Efiwe.org

Efiwe.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails the criteria for establishing notability. Some references are from reliable sources but they are not independent of the subject and do not contain independent analysis and/or opinion. Fails

• I have re-written the profile to be more encyclopedic and less newsletter-y like it had become before. Hi @
  HighKing: do take a look and let me know if you're satisfied. Igwatala (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep As a partner organization fufilling a similar purpose to Wikipedia. Keep. scope_creep (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has enough sources in its 14 references to show notability. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It seems to me that the keep lines (both experienced editors) are not addressing
  WP:ORGIND. There's no evidence of "partner organization" status, and that's not the guideline anyway: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
  . Of the 14 alleged sources, 9 are written by Efiwe.org, of which 3 are the same press release deliberately cited from different websites; the other 5 are local to towns around Southern Illinois University Edwardsville:
  1. local: The Telegraph is near SIUE (and also filled with abusive JavaScript, link spam inserted visibly in some pages, and scam ads like "Login to Your Account" to a website that wants you to tell them your e-mail account and password).
  2. local: The Edwardsville Intelligencer is near SIUE
  3. local: Alestle is SIUE's own newspaper
  4. self: The Ktravula article is labeled "For Immediate Release" — it's a direct press release from Efiwe.org
  5. self: RiverBender.com is local coverage in Alton/Edwardsville, and is a direct copy of the same press release from Efiwe.org
  6. local: The Edwardsville Intelligencer is near SIUE
  7. self: Efiwe.org main website
  8. self: Efiwe.org Facebook post
  9. self: Efiwe.org's Instagram
  10. self: Efiwe'org's Twitter
  11. self: Efiwe.org's LinkedIn
  12. self: Philip Alabi's own prose, and no evidence of editorial control: "We tell your story as you want it to be told."
  13. local: Belleville News-Democrat is near SIUE
  14. self: same press release again, marked "Content is submitted and reviewed before posting on STLtoday.com, but not verified for accuracy." and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is arguably near SIUE

Making 1 press release look like 3 independent sources isn't a good sign. --Closeapple (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a new source that isn't based in/around Edwardsville and isn't derived from the press release. Igwatala (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The social media references will need to go, but there is now coverage on two continents. scope_creep (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The social media links have been removed. It looks good to me too. Igwatala (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per sources such as Nigeria News that have been addded to the article and the likelihood of further African coverage showing this is more than a local interest project Atlantic306 (talk).

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.