Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paani Project

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paani Project

[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)

A newly created non-profit organization collecting funds for its project's execution. Non-notable organization, likely covert advertising. The article relies on brief mentions and sponsored news articles.. Fails WP:GNG and does not satisfy WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources used in the article (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], among others) are independent and clearly establish notability. Brycehughes (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1(Michigandaily): Anouncement/PR; 2 (dailytarheel): Non reliable fails WP:RS; 3 (Parhlo): this can be consider; 4 (news10.pk): fails WP:RS; 5 (regionaltimes): fails WP:RS. Unable to satisfy WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think any of those are unreliable and I'm not sure why you think the first one is PR. Brycehughes (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Don’t delete, sources are reliable. P.H.TARU
Keep- He got enough media coverage and also every source are reliable. So, don’t delete. FardousTWG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.25.250.246 (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I am truly puzzled (and somewhat saddened) by seeing this article here on AfD. Especially when this article about a non-profit organization is backed up by such wide range of Reliable Sources as The Christian Science Monitor newspaper, Haaretz (Israeli newspaper), CNN News and The Muslim Observer (a U.S. and Michigan based newspaper founded in 1998). Easily passes WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had too many tabs open yesterday on my computer and I mixed up the given References for another Michigan organization LaunchGood with this Michigan-based Paani Project above. I fully admit my mistake and I again apologize for it. I am now redoing it only considering the given References for Paani Project above. Ngrewal1 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Updated all references on this article just now. Has a total of 20 references backing up this article including Los Angeles Times newspaper, The News International newspaper, Daily Times (Pakistan), Geo News (a major Pakistani TV channel), Gulf News newspaper, Arab News newspaper, Council on American-Islamic Relations (a large nationwide U.S. organization) – these are all third party independent Reliable Sources which establish this non-profit project's notability. It's all there for everyone to see that these are exclusive feature articles (and NOT MERE MENTIONS at all). Easily passes WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources and reliable sources exists. Peter303x (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not at all clear from the nomination whether an appropriate BEFORE was carried out. Per Ngrewal1 RS clearly exists; passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is provided by many of citations from Independent, Significant, Reliable, Secondary sources. So it clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:NONPROFIT. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2021 (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.