Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Harsh and Payal Hada 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Harsh and Payal Hada Foundation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia does not meet the style, the style of errors, etc. I'm Lukas!  --Talk  10:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  14:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The nomination doesn't make sense? Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article needs a complete head-to-toe rewrite. This is one of the most poorly-written articles I've yet seen on Wikipedia (and believe me, it has plenty of competition). The article can't even decide whether its subject is the foundation, the person who founded it, or that person's past business activities. But none of that is a reason to delete it. The article does seem to establish notability as it has received coverage in local media sources. If it is a topic that is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, the solution is to rewrite, not to delete. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and I would've said keep if not for the current article and it simply being best to restart it with better information and sources overall. SwisterTwister   talk  06:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The kernal is the section The_Harsh_and_Payal_Hada_Foundation: everything else is off-topic or coatracking. I am tempted to be bold and prune to just that section, which would mean that the article rests on the primary source and the half-page article in Kolkata Gives, an Issuu publication which describes itself as a newsletter. AllyD (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: I have now simplified the article to remove most of the extraneous material which didn't relate to its subject matter. A search for further sources turned up a passing mention of this Foundation's grant-giving in this 2013 newspaper article but that is too slight to add to the article itself. That leaves the reference to the Foundation's own website and the unsigned piece in the Kolkata Gives newsletter. A WP:WORTHYCAUSE but I am not seeing anything to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability at this point, either WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG AllyD (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - not all charities are notable, and to be blunt, this one appears to be run of the mill, and the sourcing is terrible. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 5 February 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.