Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Volunteers

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 no consensus. Lack of participation after multiple relists. The nominator's own neutral stance makes even a soft deletion seem inappropriate. RL0919 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video Volunteers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I've declined a WP:G11 request as I'm not convinced this is purely advertising. However, this certainly isn't appropriate for Wikipedia in its current state, and I'm not convinced it's salvageable. Procedural nomination, so I abstain. (Note that there's some highly questionable BLP content in here. Normally I'd remove it, but in this case I'll leave it in situ during the AfD as it could theoretically impact on the notability of the topic.) ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have tagged G11 in this article, as recently I got an offer to join this organization. When I started verifying whether this was a real or a fraud organization, I found the Wikipedia entry. Then I saw there were confusing details and violations of Wikipedia policies. The confusing part was that the lead of this article says that this is a New York-based NGO, but the infobox says this only serves India. Then I went to their website and there were only Indian features, nothing US based. The article was created without any reliable sources. 3 sections are without citations. As a result, I preferred deletion because it appears to have been created for advertising purposes.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unusual for citizen-journalism type projects to be based in the US even if they don't serve a US market, as the US has constitutional free speech clauses and very weak libel laws, so being formally based in the US offers more protection to people saying things which might on occasion fall foul of national governments. (Wikipedia is based in the US for the same reason.) There isn't any doubt that this organization is notable by Wikipedia's standards; the issue is whether this version of the article (or any of the previous versions in the history) can be brought into line with Wikipedia's standards, or whether it's so irredeemably puffy that it makes more sense to delete it altogether. ‑ Iridescent 07:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:13, 6 January 2022 (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.