Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indus Resource Center

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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Resource Center

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

This organization does exist, but lacks substantial independent non-trivial RS coverage. Tagged for reliance on primary sources for over 4 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has not been the subject of vandalism and is in a poor corner of the world making organic growth unlikely to occur as fast as it can in the west. As it is verified we must consider is such an institution generally notable or GN if it has the sources to prove it, the answer in the west is undoubtedly yes, but could be harder in this little pocket of the world. It is doing no harm as is and I bet it will be improve by perhaps someone traveling to the area that picks up a local paper in a few years time and that would be great, but we have to keep it to let that happen.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I got as far as your first clause, and am confused. Who said this was "the subject of vandalism"? If nobody said that, what is the relevance of the fact you assert -- that it is "not the subject of vandalism"?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if we acknowledge
WP:NGO guideline looks for organisations that are national or international in scope, there is no compelling reason to keep this article based on policy and guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2012 (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.