Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrashantAdvait 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. There is a consensus of editors who are satisfied that the coverage of this article subject is sufficient and acceptable by Wikipedia standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PrashantAdvait Foundation

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails Notability. sources are not independent. Few press releases and passing mentions. WikiMentor01 (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. WikiMentor01 (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Acharya Prashant unless and until independent sourcing is developed. Jahaza (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale for my support of a Keep vote. I identified references [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] that are Significant and comply with WP:GNG. Sooterout (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Source 1 is not accessible to me. Source 2 and 5 are written by authors that apart from this mostly publish un- or badly marked adverts, possibly using AI, see for example [6][7][8], as well as [9] (crypto scam)+ [10]. See also WP:RSNOI. Source 3 and 4 seem legit to me, although they have an unusual, highly praising style, especially source 4. Both are from the same news company. Iluzalsipal (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Source 1 is a passing mention in an extremely non-neutral section of a non-scientific book, definitely neither WP:REL nor WP:SIGCOV. Iluzalsipal (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tending towards Merge Iluzalsipal (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Or Merge. Most of the sources are promotional PR stuff and Wp:NEWSORGINDIA. Zuck28 (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Keep This organization is independently notable, having significant references which are from reliable sources. Evidences found to meet WP:NORG. Orbit578 (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page meets WP:NORG requirements through several independent sources providing significant coverage. Although, a few sources mentioned earlier may give an impression of being promotional in nature, I see that the organization has received substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject across different time periods and contexts and aligns with WP:GNG. Sources [11], [12], and [13] are evidence of sustained media coverage rather than single-event coverage. Notice that sources span several months and cover distinct organizational activities, indicating ongoing newsworthiness beyond promotional events. Found more coverage from a few other established outlets including [14] and [15], written by journalists with credible editorial histories. [16] demonstrates international scope and engagement with global environmental issues. Though #11, #12, and #16 are from the same news org, they were published by three different experienced journalists known for producing news articles on varied topics of public interest. These sources are at par with other high quality coverage and appear to be legitimate news reporting rather than paid placement. To sum, the sources collectively show independent editorial judgment in covering the foundation's activities across multiple domains (animal welfare, environmental awareness, education, etc). The coverage pattern suggests genuine news value rather than promotional placement, with different journalists at various outlets finding the organization's work newsworthy enough to report on independently. While some sources may be of varying quality, the totality of coverage demonstrates the foundation has achieved sufficient independent notability to warrant a standalone article per WP:NORG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anshul81 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strong coverage in reliable sources shows clear notability of the subject. Merge suggestions come from inexperienced editors—this is a notable organisation Monhiroe (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Monhiroe, I've literally been commenting on deletion discussions since before you were born, not that my argument should necessarily be any weightier for that reason, but you can't dismiss it as that of an "inexperienced editor". Jahaza (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote what I understood, please don't take it personally. Thanks. Monhiroe (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete This page and the recent unsourced and blatantly promotional edits at Acharya Prashant display classic signs of WP:UPE. The "keep" votes above are suspicious to say the least. Yuvaank (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is a notable non-profit organization with wide media coverage. Independent Reliable Sources confirm its significance, meeting WP:NORG. Taabii (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My WP:BEFORE suggests that there is considerable coverage on the topic in trustworthy sources like News18, ABP News, News24, and India.com, all of which are esteemed media outlets. I am confident that this should adequately fulfill the criteria of WP:ORG. all the best! Baqi:) (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changing my vote to Keep after reviewing the sources and thoughtful arguments by other editors. The organisation appears notable and meets WP:NORG based on independent coverage.Zuck28 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2025 (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.