Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anudip Foundation


 * 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 speedy deleted. Already speedy deleted the day before. Too much WP:PROMO. Will WP:SALT at WP:ECP level. El_C 12:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Anudip Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Advertisement of a non-notable organization based on press released/paid releases. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: An article refbombed with a repeating set of references, many of which are press releases by the organisation, items by partner firms (e.g. Cisco), Q&A with a founder, and brief mentions in broader articles about training. The best of the references appear to be Kasmin Fernandes' CSR article and perhaps the item from "thebetterindia", leaving the question of whether they are sufficient for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - I speedied this earlier today! Deb (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Ref bombs galore for what turns out to be not much coverage in reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC) *Comment: Ha!Ha!Ha! Are you Okay..? are these (CNBC-TV18,ANInews,thebetterindia) not reliable source? Please, stop this kind of work.
 * stay on Wikipedia - I saw there are many authentic source like that CNBS-TV18, ANInews, thebetterindia, dnaindia and etc.So, I think it shouldn't be deleted....thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammadyeakubhasan111 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be deleted this Article about this organization is totally truth..and there are many mainstream media's references are staying here.So, I think this article is capable to stay on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.253.65.189 (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perfect, Shouldn't be deleted just trust me this Article is perfect and all information about this NGO is truth.....I know about this organization before.....and also many reliable source are staying..........So, I think this article shouldn't be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmdemammahidi (talk • contribs) 07:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC) — Newmdemammahidi (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * shouldn’t be deleted after researching to this article, I saw everything is perfect and authentic sources references are Awesome and Article about this NGO 100% capable to stay on Wikipedia....So, I think it will not be fair...if this article bebdeleted.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emamkhan26780 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)  — Emamkhan26780 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: SPI now opened on the spate of similar opinions above. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, and as a rebuttal to the obvious socking/meating I'm also going to do it live:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO8-AByvuio is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company officer.
 * https://www.businesswireindia.com/anudip-appoints-new-chief-executive-officer-62659.html is useless for notability (connexion to subject), and the same applies to any other BusinessWire source as well since they only ever publish companies' press releases.
 * https://www.telegraphindia.com/education/lockdown-has-led-young-men-and-women-to-rethink/cid/1802616 is useless for notability (too sparse). The article just doesn't discuss the Foundation in any appreciable depth, merely talking about students who decided to use it. This doesn't help prove Anudip Foundation is notable; at best it helps prove those students are notable (and this is a chicken-dinner news story, so even that is doubtful at best).
 * https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-anudip-citi-foundation-launch-first-skill-devpt-centre-in-wb-2517222 is useless for notability (routine coverage). Announcement of the opening of a new school under its control.
 * https://qz.com/india/1007906/a-new-wave-of-tech-talent-is-emerging-not-from-indias-classrooms-but-its-hinterlands/ is useless for notability (too sparse); the scroll.in link is a repub. Again, it barely discusses Anudip in any real depth, instead being about students getting training in the tech industry.
 * https://www.thebetterindia.com/87591/anudip-foundation-skills-training-women-youth/ is useless for notability (Connexion to subject). Per the Accenture source later, Anudip Foundation is partnered with Accenture, and this article is written in cooperation with Accenture's India branch, which in turn makes this source very sketchy in terms of independence from Anudip and its surrogates.
 * https://www.nationalskillsnetwork.in/anudip-foundation-digital-skills/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company officer.
 * https://thecsrjournal.in/csr-project-trained-85000-youth-women-build-careers-tech/# looks fine, but something about it seems rather off for me. If someone else has an opinion on it, I'd love to hear it.
 * https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/helping-youth-in-hinterland-acquire-deeplearning-skills/article9707238.ece is useless for this subject (too sparse). Name-drop.
 * https://www.indiatvnews.com/business/news-reliance-foundation-announces-womenconnect-challenge-grantees-737170 is useless for this subject (too sparse). Name-drop.
 * https://www.aninews.in/news/business/anudip-appoints-new-chief-executive-officer20190403134228/ has been discussed and dismissed - it's a repub of the BusinessWire source.
 * https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2017/nov/18/sultans--of-skill-1703090.html is borderline. Take out the massive quoteblocks from company officers and you're left with just enough to justify a cite, but it's horribly weak and likely would not survive a concerted challenge from someone more familiar with sourcing for companies in the Subcontinent.
 * https://www.accenture.com/in-en/about/corporate-citizenship/anudip-foundation is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Anudip Foundation is partnered with Accenture.
 * We can't use the PDF (connexion to subject, unknown provenance). It's uncredited and reads more like a recruiting brochure.
 * In sum, the sources cited in the article are of abysmal quality, generally being either connected to the subject or just having no usable detail to cite, with only one halfway-decent source that's sketchy and one that's only charitably citable. A Google News search in the English-language edition of Google only returns https://www.edexlive.com/beinspired/2018/oct/04/this-kolkata-based-organisation-is-helping-marginalised-youth-including-victims-of-trafficking-find-4094.html as a viable source (string: "anudip foundation"). Unless some good sources are found in the Subcontinent's native languages, there's not much of anything here to work with at all. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 08:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

*Shouldn't be deletedAfter researching this article i found everything is correct about Anudip Foundation. And there are many mainstream media references. So i think this article should exists on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikat065 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)  — Saikat065 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: I've struck the confirmed sockpuppets' arguments and requested this AfD be protected for a time. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 10:04, 14 February 2022 (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.