Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge India


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Bridge India

 * – ( View AfD View log )

They may be of good intentions but this article is basically promoting the organization which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is about. Furthermore WP:NGO provides two criteria which must be met unfortunately the organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search as well as the sources used in the article are primary sources (own website) self published sources and user generated sources. Basically it is an WP:ADMASQ. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage only includes press releases. AnM2002 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The two publications that caught my eye were Business Standard and Daily Pioneer - but both of them are PTI and hence won't contribute to notability. Fails WP:ORG. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion doesn't seem to have been listed at Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 2, which I presume is why it hasn't been closed. Pinging . Cordless Larry (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Or rather it was listed, and then this happened. Pinging for clarification. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I should really have looked at the history of this page, shouldn't I?, I think this revert has left the discussion in no man's land, from where it won't be closed without intervention. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @, Yikes! I think taking to AN might do the trick. Celestina007 (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2021 (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.