Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malala Fund


 * 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 keep. Even if the delete arguments were entirely true, deletion would not be justified, since this could always be merged or redirected to the founder's page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Malala Fund

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looking closely at all the interviews, passing mentions and insignificant coverage, I am lead to the conclusion that the subject fails WP:NCORP. w umbolo  ^^^  20:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: I count eight sources from the article focusing largely or substantially on the organisation itself . More than one is about Apple's partnership, but the charity is discussed in a wide variety of contexts. A Google News search shows a bajillion more sources – some more sources on separate topics, from 2018 alone, include: . The first couple of pages of a Google Books search also look fruitful at yielding significant coverage. I came here expecting to reluctantly !vote delete based on WP:NOTINHERITED from Yousafzai, but I think the article easily passes WP:NCORP. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 21:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of the sources convince me. w umbolo   ^^^  21:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For what reason? Independence, depth, reliability? — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Depth of coverage of the organization. Most of these only contain one fact, combined with a bunch of quotes and information unrelated to the Fund. w umbolo   ^^^  22:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I simply don't agree. Take the first source I mentioned, Verge. Facts contained: Apple partnership; short-term goal of Fund; Gulmakai Network purpose and scope; founding circumstances and purpose of the charity. Or another one, FC. I count at least five paragraphs whose main topic is the Fund itself, which don't contain quotes from Fund-related people. Similar depth is achieved in, and another source I found . For books, there's these and there's also this . — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will respond more lengthily tomorrow, but fyi the last link you posted isn't independent (the author worked at Malala Fund, according to his Linkedin profile). w umbolo   ^^^  22:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the relevant link: WP:ROUTINE. w umbolo   ^^^  07:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, the founder has received significant news coverage and this has transferred to the organisation she founded. A quick google search excluding wikipedia turned up over 9000 hits.  Even if the press isn't always positive, e.g., it has significant coverage. WCM email 07:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Sources are a passing mention and the page seems to have been created only because it is associated with a notable individual. See  WP:NOTINHERITED. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage from independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Upon review of the article and its sources, I'm satisfied that there's stand-alone notability here under WP:NORG. The alternative would have been to merge the content to Malala's article, but it may be undue there in such detail. Either way, the content would have been retained, hence my iVote. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The content is cobbled up from passing mentions to give a resemblance of notability. Does not passes GNG for standalone article. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems to be both an aspersion on the creator and a violation of WP:RUBBISH. We judge notability on the sources that exist, not the ones in the article, and I've listed several sources above that are in-depth coverage rather than passing mentions. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 18:00, 16 September 2018 (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.