Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sampurna (2nd nomination)

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. Without prejudice to recreation if someone wants to and can write a more up-to-date, not copyvio-sounding and sourced article. Sandstein 08:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sampurna

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

No evidence found of "significant coverage" Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Probably doesn't even exist any more. The article was posted in 2008. First AfD in 2008 wasn't contested by author. If it hasn't had a source by 2012 that probably means it is defunct. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Encyclopedias cover history. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or alternatively it means its a crap article. I should have searched newspaper coverage. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 06:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The relevant criteria here are WP:NGO. I'm satisfied it meets criterion 1 in that it's national in scope. As to 2, which is a restatement of WP:GNG essentially, we have coverage in the Indian Express and Times of India of an incident revolving around its founder's political connections. Also coverage in The Hindu re: political activities and a rape case. There's also some other trivial-looking coverage of conferences the NGO organized and such. But I'm satisfied it meets the criteria, if only barely. More sourcing is likely to exist in Hindi. --Batard0 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added those sources. I assume its the same Sampurna NGO? (are we sure?) If its in AP local sources would be in English or Telugu not Hindi, but evidently the newspaper coverage would be in India. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe that the sources located by Batard0 (I couldn't find any better ones) are substantive coverage. Hekerui (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can show that it is not a copy vio from the site. I tried to verify this, but the site appears down. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2012 (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.