Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan and Central Asian Association

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 Draftify.Best option since notability was failed to be well-established, by itself, in the course of the debate.(non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 00:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan and Central Asian Association

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

fails WP:NORG a WP:SOAPBOX piece written by a user with a decalered WP:COI. The sources are either declared as having been written by members of the association (2, 5, 6, 7) the associations own web site, the profil of the association on the charity commission web site or 2 unverifable "assessments" which are not proof of notability even if they were verifiable. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy There seem to be some sources to support notability like [1] and [2] but a COI article should have really gone through the AfC process to begin with - it may just be too soon, but I think it's possible additional sources will be available in the future, and I would support an outcome that won't prejudice future recreation. I would support merging to Rabia Nasimi for the time being but we don't have a standalone article on her yet.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are secondary sources. They may be from students on placement, but for a minority community like this they are reasonably objective. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 05:24, 17 February 2018 (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.