Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists


 * 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  12:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Indian Association of Clinical Cardiologists

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Prod removed by creator. Original prod was to allow for adding of in-depth sources which I was unable to locate in searches of Google search, Google News, and books. Everything I did find was simply a passing mention. Fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:27, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Should not be deleted
Hi all, I feel this article should exist in Wikipedia. Because, 1. The subject is covered by newspapers, news websites like The Hindu,The Times of India, etc and those are not at all press release. 2. This organisation is 'NOT' profitable, commercial establishment. It is 'Non-profitable' service organisation and it is not looking for any kind of 'advertisement and promotion' to wide the business. 3. The vision of this organisation is 'To eradicate heart decease from India', So Wikipedia may disseminate this to whole world. 4. This organisation is not just headed by some X,Y and Z doctors but the leaders are eminent professional in the medical field and for their service to society, the Indian government has honored those people by Indian highest civilian awards like 'Padma Shri', Padma Bhushan and this I mention to stress how important this organisation is. Others please think on this and share your views. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete-1)Not for profit does not mean the company does not advertise.(Even the Wikimedia Foundation advertises).2)Vision is not a criterion for notability(Even organisations with one member can have visions of changing the world .It is the work and its coverage that counts).3)The "leaders" are not at all leaders but patrons of the organizations who may or may not be linked with the organization itself[no sorce affirming that has been provided]4)Most of the sources provided are of passing mentions of the organization[hindu and TOI] (Do not constitute notability).Some are press releases .Some of them are coverage regarding the so called patrons110.227.103.178 (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete - Reply to above comments: Hi, 1) Please understand what is 'advertisement'. Whenever a 'Non-profit' organisation advertises, it is not for commercial gain or profit. It means the foundation to be known to serve better. 2) This is where we, the human has to look into whether is an organisation simply one man organisation or it is a collaborative effort by many people. And this particular organisation's vision has been created forwarded by eminent doctors who are all the recipients of India's highest civilian awards. 3) The subject is not just passing mentions in the leading news papers. The news paper covered the subject particularly. References for conference proceedings will be this much only but it clearly support the subject I hope. So others if you feel it is worth this subject to be in Wikipedia kindly give your opinion.Uyarafath (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are free to discuss, but only one !vote is allowed per person. As far as non-profits not being promotional or having a commercial gain or profit, that is false. Even non-profits need to make money in order to survive, even if it is through donation. Regardless, I still don't believe this page meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Can you link to the sources that you feel meet that guideline? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi User:CNMall41, I do agree with you. I once again went through one by one references. As you said, no depth of coverage about the organisation in independent sources. Let the discussion goes, if anything is there, let me add it to the article. By the way, for conference related references will be like that only. Those references supports that the conferences held are true. Thank you.Uyarafath (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - If you agree that there is "no depth of coverage about the organisation in independent sources," does this mean you agree that it fails WP:CORPDEPTH? I don't want to misquote you so please clarify. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Can spot only some mentions on references, I think it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORG.17:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)JackTracker (talk)


 * 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.