Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh Samaj Sahyog Samiti

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 of the nomination was delete. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple requests for notability examples without meaningful result; minimal Google hits (many to link-farms), difficult to verify. Indian langauge searches turn up similiar, minimal results. Rklawton 15:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - No claim to notability - variation of spelling of "Sahyog" to "Sahayog" gives 8 more nn-google hits. No luck even with google search on the founder's name. Could be a thinly veiled advert. --Gurubrahma 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, almost a weak delete, but this article's been given enough time to prove its notability, to no avail. HumbleGod 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some of the text is copyvio from [1] . It's not clear whether this article is just an advertisement. Dlyons493 Talk 22:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I feel it has potential, but only if someone (preferably the original author) is willing to resolve the criticisms made.-- Tivedshambo (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "Delete" because, while this appears to be a worthy organization, Wikipedia's reliability comes first -- notability must be verifiable using credible sources, which we still don't have. For all we really know, this could be some charity scam seeking to defraud donors using the seeming respectability afforded by a Wikipedia article.

I note that the article's creator, Adarshsamaj may also been have editing as 203.101.108.76. If not, I'm dispappointed Adarshsamaj never returned to edit this or anything else on Wikipedia, leaving me feeling this was just another "drive-by vanity submission".

Many thanks to the other editors that tried to give this article a chance.

--A. B. 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I speedied this, but was rightfully petitioned to revert it, so I did. I stuck prod on there to keep the motivation for fixing the article, but no one has really come through. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:27, 9 July 2006 (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.