Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development and Education Programme for Daughters and Communities

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. JForget 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development and Education Programme for Daughters and Communities

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

fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits.[1], one of which seems a self published account of someone who worked there. those wanting to keep must show evidence of actual significant in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a stub. The organization clearly does important work and is funded by various NGOs. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organization clearly does important work and is funded by various NGOs is not a criterion for notability. please provide actual coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Twenty-three Google Books results, most of which provide significant coverage about the organisation. Though it isn't the the books' primary subject, I think the amount of coverage makes up for the possible lack of depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

most of the books are not indepth coverage but mentions which verify its existence. if it was a book with a full chapter on Development and Education Programme for Daughters and Communities that would count a lot lot more. can any of these mentions you found in gbooks be actually incorporated as references in the article? LibStar (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2010 (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.