Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CITTA 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 02:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CITTA Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very promotional and written in a very spammy way. I have already removed a copyright violation but I cannot find any sustained coverage of the organisation that would help it pass WP:NCORP, save some press releases. – Isochrone (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. – Isochrone (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, Economics, Nepal, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article goes over a foundation. Many of the individual projects have coverage in reliable, neutral, third-party sources (especially in terms of architecture) which are cited. One of the projects is already a Wikipedia article and is linked to in the article. In terms of individual projects, there is a healthy amount of coverage online. I will add criticism about one project that was discontinued to add a complete perspective of all projects. — Note to closing admin: Starlighsky (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

• Delete. Per nom. Case of WP:PROMO, Promotion, advertising. Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that it is not promotion or advertising because it has a criticism of a failed project by the foundation. Starlighsky (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that the article was based on the GYAAN Center architecture. The reasoning was that writing about the foundation allows for the center to be written about: (External link) The Gyaan Center, a Sustainable Architectural Marvel in the Heart of India’s Golden City - Architect and Interiors India Starlighsky (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes of additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and RangersRus. Even if it’s not strictly promotional, it’s just tun of the mill, and not covered in a significant way in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The foundation is likely notable. If someone adds more sources, it would be very helpful. The editing spirit (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.