Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chopra 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   redirect to Deepak Chopra. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  21:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Chopra foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and so fails WP:GNG. Alexbrn talk 04:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ' Merge' (back to) Deepak Chopra. Even though not necessarily notable, it has (and probably deserves) coverage there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Delete and Redirect. It appears to fail notability (hence keeping is not a legitimate option), and there is nothing here which should be there and isn't already there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable promotional article first due to lack of notability. Next Redirect to Deepak Chopra (or appropriate section). If anything is worth Merging it can be merged into Deepak Chopra. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. The foundation is not the subject of multiple in-depth works. CorporateM (Talk) 05:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave it or pare down Legal matters about the Chopra Foundation have been covered at length in the New York Post, board members of the Chopra Foundation have been covered on Marketwired, the Huffington Post has covered both the Chopra Foundation's SBTI and Sages & Scientists programs, and the IRS & Guidestar both cover the Chopra Foundation's financials. Whether they include some primary sources of affiliated charities or not, there are 20 sources for this article, including the 6 above.  This is a foundation, founded by someone highly notable, that generates nearly $1 million a year and is involved with numerous programs.  It can be pared down if necessary, but there's more than enough material to warrant an article. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece does not "address the topic directly and in detail" as GNG requires. Neither even do the HuffPo blog posts you mention. As for a press release, a search result from the IRS and a business directory listing ... seriously? Alexbrn talk 07:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * MarketWired appears to be a press release. Huffington post is co-authored by the founder of the foundation himself. IRS is basically original research or primary at best. I don't know what Guidestar is. The sources that are acceptable are focused on Chopra himself, not the foundation, therefore we should follow suite. CorporateM (Talk) 08:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree the majority of the sources focus on Chopra, the fact that he is more notable does not necessarily make the foundation not notable. I also think it's highly relevant to point out that regardless of authorship, the two Huffington Post articles discuss, in depth, the two main projects of the Chopra Foundation, SBTI and Sages and Scientists.  Articles detailing the activities/projects of a foundation are certainly discussing the foundation's specifics.  Likewise, the NY Post piece dealt specifically with the legal affairs of the Chopra Foundation, with which Walsh was formerly affiliated and from whom he allegedly redirected funds.  I've got numerous news sources detailing the activities of the foundation, a reputable, independent news piece discussing legal matters of the foundation, and a mountain of primary sources (not as good as the secondaries, but still admissible in conjunction) establishing a scope of activities.  Leaving aside the contentious nature of the founder, this seems like more than enough to meet GNG for an average starter article. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The reliable sources are about Chopra, not the foundation. We need 'Significant coverage' per WP:GNG, and this isn't it. - MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2014 (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.