Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti


 * 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, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article doesn't have a single solitary reference to a secondary source; the footnotes refer exclusively to the organisation's own website and publications. Google doesn't find anything else either. Nobody has attempted to do anything about the June 2016 tags, which are if anything understated: written like an advertisement, may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline, contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information, relies too much on references to primary sources. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete These sources are the best I could find:, , . While they are reliable, they are not quite detailed enough to count as substantive coverage. Vanamonde (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I have spent some time looking into this and cannot spot any real evidence of notability. Furthermore, the article is clearly intended for promotional purposes etc, as indicated by the socking, the SPA nature of the major contributors, and by statements such as this. Even if kept, it would need to be massively trimmed. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:51, 22 August 2016 (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.