Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iman 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Foundation

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

The Huffington Post sources don't mention the word "Iman". Rest sources are mostly from their website. Captain Spark (talk) 02:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some brief mention in few sources in search result, but this article fails WP:ORG. And the two sources used in this article www.iman-worldwide.org and www.culturaldiplomacy.org are not third party, independent sources.--Greek Legend (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Captain Spark's comments... True Huffington Post articles don't mention word Iman but they give context to what the chairman does. Incorrect that rest of the sources are mostly from own site -- 8 of 26 is less than 1/3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walrus the Jerk (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Greek Legend (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently satisfies the applicable notability, best deleted until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -the little available press seems somewhat promotional and so does the format of the article. Comes off more so promoting the organization that also doesn't meet notability Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2016 (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.