Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Income

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. There have been no comments for a few weeks; the conclusion is that the community doesn't care if we have this article or not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Income[edit]

[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)

Sources in the article are from blogs, directories, interviews, primary or passing mention; appears to be WP:REFBOMB. Only one source (Borgen Magazine) appears to be secondary with SIGCOV. PROD was removed with the addition of an interview and a promo piece repeating what the NGO does. At present, does not satisfy WP:NONPROFIT or the WP:GNG, happy to withdraw if SIGCOV, secondary independent reliable sourcing can be shown. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and Switzerland. Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Random Institute: Random Institute and its head, Sandino Scheidegger, founded the Social Income organization. The organization's name makes it difficult to find sources establishing notability, but we have enough to include it as a section in the older organization's page. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @OwenX – while both entities were indeed founded by Sandino Scheidegger, it is important to note that they are distinct, separate legal organizations, each with its own unique mission and operational focus. The Random Institute primarily functions as an art institution, whereas Social Income is recognized as an official NGO and is registered as a tax-exempt entity in Switzerland.

Merging these pages would not provide added value to Wikipedia users. Instead, it could potentially lead to confusion, as the separate identities and missions of each organization are significant and merit individual recognition. Keeping the pages separate ensures that Wikipedia offers clear, accurate, and comprehensive information about each entity, allowing users to understand their distinct natures and contributions.

Thank you for considering this perspective in your decision-making process. DanielBallo (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the distinction between the two organizations, and it certainly made my decision more difficult in arriving at my suggestion to merge the two. The alternative, however, is to delete the article about the Social Income organization, as it doesn't meet our standard of notability by itself. Opting for the lesser evil, I recommend we keep some of the contents as a section in Random Institute, while highlighting the fact that the two are different organizations with different purpose and structure, but with common founders. If and when there is enough significant coverage about Social Income to establish notability, the article can be spun off and revived from the redirect, with your old version serving as a starting point. Owen× ☎ 23:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Goldsztajn – I wish to address the concerns raised regarding the potential deletion of the page. It's important to consider the variety of sources that have covered the subject, including the coverage in Borgen Magazine, which, as you've already noted, is a noteworthy source. Notable among other sources are P.S. Zeitung (Wikipedia Link), where Min Li Marti, both editor-in-chief and a member of the national council, has featured content relevant to this topic, and Das Lamm, a prominent Swiss online newspaper. Additionally, there are offline sources such as Freundin Magazin, with an available PDF of the print version, and local reports (West Africa) from Hidden Voices Salone (PDF).

It's also worth noting the distinct nature of the initiative discussed on the page. Although a registered NGO with tax-exempt status in Switzerland, it operates uniquely as a civil solidarity movement driven by volunteers. This aspect is particularly relevant because it differs from traditional NGO structures, which actively seek press coverage, whereas Social Income does not follow this approach. Despite this, the initiative has successfully raised a substantial amount for a universal basic income pilot. This effort has not only been recognized by the Stanford Basic Income Lab but is also listed on the main UBI map, a detail that is mentioned in the article. As well as it is part of an open source movement which is also recognised by GitHub as one of seven meaningful open source initiatives, as mentioned in the article (third party source) and is supported by the official Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, with a confirmation letter linked in the article).

Furthermore, the initiative's focus on Sub-Saharan Africa contributes to its notability. This region is frequently underrepresented in the global news cycle, especially in the Global North, making the achievements and impacts of the initiative more noteworthy.

In light of this information, I believe the page in question fulfills Wikipedia's notability criteria and offers valuable, well-sourced information that enhances the platform's diversity and richness of content.

Thank you for considering these points. DanielBallo (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DanielBallo - any subject which appears in Wikipedia must be supported by significant coverage in mutliple reliable sources. What any of us think about a subject, its unique status, its importance etc is not relevant to a discussion of notability, all that matters is the existence of reliable sourcing. So, in terms of the sources presented other than Borgen Magazine, there does not appear to be any sourcing otherwise that reaches the criteria to be classified as reliable. Of the ones mentioned above:

Freundin Magazin - this is not SIGCOV, it is a short quarter page promotional piece, simply repeating what SI does.
Hidden Voices Salone - this is not independent, it is a publication of the Jamil and Nyanga Jaward Foundation one of Social Income's partners in Sierra Leone.
Das Lamm - this is a promotional interview.
PS Zeitung - same interview content as Das Lamm, credited to the same author.
Github Blog - a passing, promotional mention on a blog about SI's use of software.
DEZA/DDC/SDC - this is a primary source, it can used to confirm the existence of the organisation, but provides no indication of SI's notability. Aid agencies fund thousands of organisations world-wide, receiving ODA funding is not in itself an indicator of notability.

None of these sources provide secondary, independent SIGCOV. Unfortunately, SI's notability cannot be established with these. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Goldsztajn - I appreciate the clarity you've provided regarding the sources for Social Income. To further contribute to this discussion, I'd like to point out an additional article on the Flanders Arts Institute's website, which offers additional insight into what Social Income represents.

While I understand and respect your viewpoint on the nature of the sources previously cited, I'd like to offer a different perspective on a couple of points:

1. Interviews in newspapers: My understanding is that interviews can provide valuable insights into an organization's work and ethos. The interview in question (Das Lamm, PS Zeitung) offers substantial information about Social Income's activities and impact, which I would consider a valid source for understanding the organization, rather than merely promotional.

2. Funding and recognition by government bodies (DEZA/DDC/SDC): The fact that Social Income was selected for funding and expertise support by a government agency might be indicative of its significance in the field. While I acknowledge that receiving funding alone does not establish notability, the selection process and the consequent support could be a testament to the organization's impact and relevance. DanielBallo (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DanielBallo: the problem with interviews, and why they are generally discounted in Wikipedia as a reliable source, is that they offer no *independent* assessment of the subject; it is what the subject wishes the audience to hear. As for an official government aid agency's assessment of those they fund - there are all sorts of criteria that they use to determine how to allocate funds, but none of them are the same as Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:NOTABILITY. Again, there's a problem of independence, all aid organizations will wish that the organisations they fund are seen in a good light, which is why, to reiterate, primary sources are discounted as a means to establish notability for Wikipedia. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2024 (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.