Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drishtipat


 * 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. That's a hell of a thorough nom statement, and zero opposition to it. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Drishtipat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of over a million charities in the US. Human rights in Bangladesh is a worthy cause, but that doesn't make the charity notable.

Of the cited sources, only Star Weekend Magazine is significant coverage in an independent, reliable, secondary source. The Christian Science Monitor contains only one sentence about Drishtipat, which profiled itself (note the use of "our" and "we") and responded to facile interview questions in Culture Connect, the magazine that is the main subject of the CSM article. The Daily Star doesn't mention Drishtipat. The remaining four sources are written by Drishtipat or its executive director, Asif Saleh. (Coincidentally, the Wikipedia article was written by an .)

Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, and ProQuest, found brief mentions, but only one other piece of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source: India West published an article on 8 February 2002 about a fundraiser in the San Francisco Bay Area, attended by about 200 people, that raised $9,000.

Drishtipat's tax exempt status was revoked in 2014 for failure to file tax forms for three consecutive years. Its 2010 filing showed revenue of about $54,000. By contrast, notable human rights charities Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International respectively reported revenue of $42 million and $37 million that year. It seems Drishtipat never got big enough to attract significant attention by the world at large.

Promotional article containing much unsourced content about a well-meaning but non-notable organization. -- Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom's extensive and well reasoned rationale. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:52, 12 September 2020 (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.