Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamata Charitable Trust

: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. Cirt (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Mamata Charitable Trust]]=

:{{la|Mamata Charitable Trust}} ([{{fullurl:Mamata Charitable Trust|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamata Charitable Trust}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This was originally a PROD, whose tag was removed by the creator with neither an explanation nor any real improvement to the article. Not only is the article written too much like an advertisement, Google only comes up with six hits about this organization: two short Yellow Pages listings, and four sites that just mention the name in passing. In addition, this article was created with a {{tl|pp-semi-protection}} tag even though no such protection has been added. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am significantly concerned about the promotional nature of the article, as well as a possible conflict of interest on the part of the contributor. Article additionally fails initial tests of notability and verifiability. Vicenarian (T · C) 15:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indication this is a notable charitable trust. no coverage in reliable secondary sources. A new name 2008 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find any Reliable Sources to show notability. I found one news piece for a similarly named but different [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pune/City-of-Angels-Old-is-useful/articleshow/4598763.cms organization], so any new news articles have to be looked at carefully to see which one it refers to. Also, the website on the article is wrong and I couldn't find the correct one. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.