Deletion of The Womanity Foundation

Comment: As per Rentier's analysis.  I'm finding the same thing.  It should be noted that the Thomson Reuters article ''does not appear to be from their news service at all'', it appears to be a ''promotional'' post on their ''foundation's blog'' about an organization they've donated to  ''written by that organization's employees''.  It's an interesting example of a source that looks reliable on the surface, but completely fails  as non-independent when actually examined.  Ditto for the Forbes article, which was written by a "contributor" from "Ashoka" which listed http://womanity.org/partners/ as a partner of this organization.  This is a  violation that depends on unreliable sources for its content, if that content was removed there would be nothing left of the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PROMOTION)

Comment: I've added some additional references that indicate  clearly met. Article could use cleanup, not deletion per . I suggest also using '''Fondation Womanity''' when searching for additional references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD)

Comment: Blatant 'good faith' spam, but another example why we do a poor job of informing people what they can and can not put in an encyclopedia. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)