Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dawood Foundation


 * 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, per WP:NONPROFIT. BD2412 T 05:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Dawood Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is well REFBOMBED. Sources are routine and mostly unreliable. Fails WP:GNG Pillechan  (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pillechan   (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Pillechan   (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Granted, the article has a more than a few citation problems, but there are enough to establish WP:GNG. While there are a few questionable sources, the article hosts sources from many reputable news agencies, including Dawn, The News International, and the Daily Times. It is very unreasonable to dispute this articles sourcing. RealKnockout (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: All these reputed sources only gives routine coverage to the organisation. It fails to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Pillechan  (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  19:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep this article, it has many contributors and is well integrated into more cohesive information about Pakistan. The article was reviewed by User:John B123 after initially questioned and tagged as advertisement and missing neutrality but then fulfilled all demands. Not have something about this organisation would be an unnecessary loss of rare but relevant information. There are not many entries about such organisations in Pakistan available on Wikipedia. Why not changing or reformulating what disturbs instead of the total destructive way to deleting it?--Crosji (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article being marked as reviewed does not mean it shouldnt be nominated for deletion. There are not many entries about such organisations in Pakistan available on Wikipedia.. This is not a valid keep argument. The subject fails to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. I will withdraw my nom if someone comes up with WP:THREE. Pillechan</b><sup style="color:#707">  (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  19:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will provide you 3 suitable sources:
 * This article by Devex is by far the best source in the article. The entire page is about TDF and the publisher is reliable.
 * article by the Daily Times contains 1 paragraph about the Foundation and its activities.
 * This article is an interview piece by Dawn. One of the questions asked by the interviewer was about the Foundation, and the interviewee gave a lengthy response. The interviewer merely asking about the Foundation's activities cements its notability in major news agencies.
 * I hope you agree with this. RealKnockout (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply:Hello, Im afraid that I cant agree with you on this.
 * The first one doesnt seem fine to me. I've no idea abou the reliability of Devex. But it is basically written like an advertisement.
 * The second one is talking entirely about something different and merely has the mention about the subject in a paragraph. Kindly read WP:ORGDEPTH.
 * The last one is a routine coverage about some other incident. It is also not enough to pass GNG. <b style="color:Purple">Pillechan</b><sup style="color:#707">  (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  20:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Devex is a news agency focusing on organizations founded over 20 years ago.
 * I am sorry about the other 2, I think I may have copy pasted the wrong URL. I have posted the correct links below.
 * https://dailytimes.com.pk/798743/the-dawood-foundation-and-wwf-pakistan-host-a-webinar-on-the-effects-of-climate-crisis/
 * https://www.dawn.com/news/1216343 RealKnockout (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Is it acceptable now for someone to bring an article to this AfD with so many references from almost all major newspapers of Pakistan? Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are pulling out the wrong guideline. My only concern is whether the subject having significant coverage from these newspapers. Having plenty of routine coverage from all the major publications doesnt merit a topic or subject its own standalone article. <b style="color:Purple">Pillechan</b><sup style="color:#707">  (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  20:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided you the three articles already. Could you kindly accept the notability of the article now? RealKnockout (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Since I SDed this originally I've been asked to comment here. I have no strong views on whether it's kept in its current state <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  06:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It's inappropriate to insist on application of ORGDEPTH here, this is a philanthropic organisation, WP:NONPROFIT is more appropriate. Whether an article has been refbombed has nothing to do with notability; it *may* suggest an attempt to subvert notability requirements, but we assume good faith first and foremost, especially in a case like this (ie a non-profit, philanthropic organisation). This is a 60 year old foundation inaugurated by the President of the Pakistan, funded by a company with a turnover of $1.6 billion in 2020....10 minutes of BEFORE reveals that information. No doubt the article needs clean up, but that is not the point of AfD. More than adequate sourcing in the article to meet the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NONPROFIT.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2021 (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.