Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Impact 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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  18:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I Impact India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Plain advertising, but contested speedy deletion The Banner talk 10:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think This article is for advertising or promotional. This article is about a non-profit organisation which motivates other corporate companies by their books or presentation to give funds to NGO's as a part of their Corporate Social Responsibility. It also provides consultancy to NGOs to raise more funds to help poors. Besides that, It also does some for-profit works to run their company. I don't think they are doing this for promotions and we should support their good works.They are also supported by some of the big non-profits and NGOs of India.If there is something looking promotional please help me to solve the problem and also help me to learn. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Is there multiple, reliable and independent coverage of I Impact India? No. It is not notable, the article is clearly written by someone from the organisation that overstates the role of what is in effect a fundraising company. It's claims are not backed up by any sources and the way to "solve the problem" as stated by the PR team member above is to delete the article pure and simple. You can find hundreds of fund-raising companies in London for example that get more coverage than this one, which doesn't make any of them notable. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. It all seems like hot air. No evidence that the subject actually does anything, let alone anything notable. Maproom (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * delete no significant third party coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- overt advertising and no evidence of notability. Flat Out (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Honestly I CSDed this as G11 when I first saw it. Then I googled it and there seemed to be quite a bit of coverage so I thought that maybe someone could fix it. I can't see that it has really improved any, and a clean slate is probably needed. Maybe someone will remake it and it wont sound like a bad advert.--Savonneux (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - there's a lot of backlinks but nothing of any substance that I can see. Flat Out (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep If finally it is considered for deletion, I would like to request to userfying it. So that It can be reintroduced after a certain period of time.  This is to inform you that it is not like "find hundreds of fund-raising companies in London" because it is not a fund-raising company at all. It is a non-profit CSR consultancy. Fund Rising contacts other companies to get fund and takes a part of total money as a profit. III gives proper strategy to NGO or other organisation. so that they can get fund by themselves and no profit is there.

And I created the content and I am not a part of the organisation. I have no relation with the company. It is my 2nd Wikipedia article creation. Maybe I could not create it properly but that does not mean I created it for the marketing of the company. I asked help from everyone to make the content better but I got only advice and negative comments from most of them. ArnabKumarSaha (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now (draft & userfy as mentioned) as my searches simply found nothing better and the current sources could be better as well (more third-party coverage such as news and magazine). SwisterTwister   talk  06:34, 6 September 2015 (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.