Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asia America Initiative

:{{la|Asia America Initiative}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asia_America_Initiative Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Asia America Initiative}})

I can find no reliable media coverage or discussion of this organization, as required per WP:GNG. One can prove that it exists, but not that it's notable. Hits in reliable sources are few and far between and consist of mentions--see [http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/2012/0928/Bruce-Lasky-trains-young-lawyers-in-Asia-to-defend-the-poor-and-powerless this] and [http://www.asianfortunenews.com/2013/11/world-reaches-out-to-help-philippines-pafc-issues-list-for-typhoon-relief-aid/]; book hits are likewise limited ([https://books.google.com/books?id=RVIUpMCAMIcC&pg=PT194&dq=%22Asia+America+Initiative%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WwKDVdPJI4HTggSbnL34DA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Asia%20America%20Initiative%22&f=false this] and [https://books.google.com/books?id=LiMurgCPa6YC&pg=PA418&dq=%22Asia+America+Initiative%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WwKDVdPJI4HTggSbnL34DA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22Asia%20America%20Initiative%22&f=false this]--and the latter does not strike me as reliable). As a side note, the history is replete with COI editors. In short, delete. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple reliable sources, but nothing which would be considered significant coverage. Therefore, failing WP:GNG, I cannot support keeping this article. If significant coverage I would not oppose the recreation of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, the organization is covered in various news outlets, I'm expanding the article and will hopefully be able to access Lexis Nexis today or tomorrow for more hits. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

::It is commendable the expansion being done. But I am looking at the sources being added, but all except for the Willian Penn University article, on wordpress (so possible WP:UGC), only give passing mention about this organization which is the subject of this AfD. Are there any sources that have been found that would be considered significant coverage other than the Willian Penn University article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete promotional advert, only trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage of the subject, fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Delete A promo piece Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I disagree that its just a promo piece. I looked for a lot of resources and they discuss more than just "trivial" aspects of what the group did as per WP:ORGDEPTH. However, I archived the page in my user area in case it gets deleted. I'm content with whatever the consensus is, and if I find additional information or more in-depth coverage, if you choose to delete, I can restore the work with the relevant info. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.