Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Mentorship Initiative


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Global Mentorship Initiative

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

An Ngo is considered notable when both criteria from WP:NGO is met, unfortunately this article is a promotional piece on a non notable NGO that lacks in-depth significant coverage in secondary reliable sources independent of them. A WP:BEFORE shows me hits in self published sources, LinkedIn, user generated sources and a plethora of other unreliable primary promotional sources. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No reliable, independent sources are listed. There are only self-published or PR sources. Multi7001 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sources look like puffery, and wouldn't be considered reliable — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks significant coverage, use of promotional blogs as sources.Juggyevil (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom Devokewater (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: No reliable sources are listed, promotional content is present.Timetraveller80 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of independent and reliable references. Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:00, 4 January 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.