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. Ignoring the WP:SPA comments, near unanimous consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Step Forward Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable organization. There are no reliable independent sources. Organisation has good cause of spreading love and peace as they are claiming in article but it is non-notable. Article is created by user named Usmanawan68 and founder of this organization has same name as claimed in article. Human3015^TALK  20:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I simply see no better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page has much more information with valid reference. This is most popular organization in Pakistan and people need information (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeshan9127 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 October 2015 — Zeeshan9127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Step Forward Pakistan is a popular organization which is working positively in major institutes of Pakistan. So i support this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namanahmad (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Namanahmad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep This Page Step Forward Pakistan is a very popular NGO. Article has proper information and source. So it will be a great step to publish this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrana ayub (talk • contribs) 19:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC) — Samrana ayub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Above "keep" voters doesn't have any other contribution than commenting here. I am not against this organization and I think any good work should be encouraged but I found this page while New Page patrolling and it is just duty of an editor to nominate things for deletion which fails WP:GNG. I think creator of this article should provide some independent reliable sources. It maybe too soon to create page on this if this organization is new, I think deletion of this page will be inspiration for this organization because they will think that they should do more social work in large scale so that independent media will cover them, will write about them and Wikipedia article can be created on this organization someday. Best luck.--Human3015^TALK  19:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. The organization clearly fails WP:CORP. I cannot find any significant coverage on it. That is all that matters in this discussion. Dispensing with the WP:SPA (possible sockpuppet) "keep" arguments: A "valid" reference is not coverage, existence does not equal notability, popularity does not equal notability, and good works do not equal notability. If no signifcant reliable coverage exists that is independent of the organization, then Wikipedia cannot keep the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  SPI initiated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Usmanawan68 ~Amatulić (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Google News returns no hits for this organization [1]. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have seen many of projects by this NGO. I suggest to keep it GreenCricket (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. All the keep votes are on the lines of "it's an NGO", which doesn't matter on Wiki- also, the number of SPA suggests meat/WP:SOCK/sockpuppetry. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches say it ails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:47, 2 November 2015 (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.