Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDonate Pakistan

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IDonate Pakistan

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

An organization that fails WP:CORP, with no significant coverage even in a single reliable secondary source. SMS ^Talk 21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I am a Pakistani residing abroad and i think Nawa-i-Waqt is reliable enough to be considered as a source. It is far desirable to improve articles at the first place. As par discussion i had here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Help_Required_On_Stub_pages it seems Pakistani organizations doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia.For example have a look at bank below waiting to be deleted it doesn't cite any external source but we all, even you and myself knows this bank exist and is notable in every means, still we want to delete it for no good reasons, once again i'd say its better to improve things. --VI-007 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see two newspaper sources and organization does look notable to me. --VI-007 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck as from a blocked sockpuppet. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Virgininfatuation, being notable in a country (like in Pakistan) and being notable here at Wikipedia are two completely different things. Wikipedia (editors) has laid down a guideline for what is to be considered notable and what not. The related notability guideline says "An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization". So we need 1.multiple 2.secondary 3.reliable and 4.independent (of the subject) sources, covering the subject 5.non trivially. The Nawa-i-Waqt source covers the topic trivially, so it can be used in the article but it is of no use in establishisng the notability of the subject. Hope this clarifies. And we all are here to build and improve this encyclopedia, but at the same time we need to strictly maintain a threshold for inclusion of articles, you may understand this once you spend a day at New Page Patrolling. --SMS ^Talk 09:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Besides you haven't mentioned your second news source. --SMS ^Talk 11:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete based on the article as it is now but I hope additional reliable independent sources are added before this closes. To the closing admin: If the references improve significantly between my last edit of this AfD and its close, please give my opinion less weight than if no such improvement occurs. If there is not enough improvement to demonstrate notability, I would be open to userfication now or at any point in the future if (and only if) the primary author or another editor states he will either improve the article and submit it through Articles for creation or a similar process or ask to have it deleted within a month of userfication. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well yes we need to aware of WP:SYSTEMIC and I am usually the first to say a source in Pakistan (or India) can be worth many in other countries (see relevant WP:INDAFD). But I look at this organization and wonder. It is only two years old, a single office, has 15 employees - this is a tiny barely established NGO. Per WP:NGO it probably would not pass. WP:TOOSOON. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep based on the article as it is now but I hope additional reliable independent sources are added before this closes. --Mike 20:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.davies1 (talk • contribs) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 13:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGO, well established and locally known Non Governmental Organization. --Jay (Lets Talk) 05:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what criteria do you say they are well established? And how does it pass WP:NGO #1 when it's only locally known? And how does it pass WP:NGO #2? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:30, 13 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) 15:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs expansion not deletion. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Viii007. --SMS ^Talk 12:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Comment struck. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deleting this one doesnt make any sense to me. it is well written and well referneced where as i reviewed some of the pages which does not even have any reference. I.e: have a look at my contributions here: Special:Contributions/Enlightinggemini almost 70% of them are well reviewed but without references. --Enlightinggemini (talk) 17:23, 21 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.