Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council of Agencies Serving South Asians

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Agencies Serving South Asians[edit]

[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)

Article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but rather they must pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on the depth and geographic range of their media coverage -- but six of the eight footnotes here are the organization's own self-published content about itself, one is entirely tangential verification of a stray fact in a source that fails to mention this organization at all in conjunction with said fact, and one is a deadlinked (but locatable via ProQuest) news article that isn't about this organization, but just briefly glances off its existence in the context of quoting its executive director as a provider of soundbite on a topic other than the organization itself.
All of which means that absolutely none of the sources here represent third-party coverage about the organization in sources independent of itself -- and even on that ProQuest search I undertook to find the deadlinked Toronto Star article, I still just get a lot of namechecks rather than substantive coverage that would pass either GNG or ORGDEPTH. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (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.