Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Organizations and social programs. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Organizations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:ORG.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Organizations deletion

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka)

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

Organization fails WP:NORG. GTrang (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom. clearly fails the requirements of WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Amateur Press Association

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

There is a major lack of sources for verification. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as no coherent policy-based deletion rationale articulated, see NEXIST. Many sources such as this readily available in Google Scholar which even in snippet/preview view substantiate the bare facts of the organization as stated in the article. This is transparently a real, venerable, and notable science fiction society that's been commented upon in the academic press: precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia should cover. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to Jclemens' source, there are several pages about the organization in The Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom, published in 1954. I also found a 1944 newspaper article from the Ontario Expositor about the American and Canadian branches of the organization: "Fiction Stranger Than Truth, State Fans of Fantasy". Toughpigs (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The major problem with this page is that it lacks inline references, which someone has decided consitutes a reason for deletion. It just needs work. This page details an important part of the science fiction fannish world and, as such, needs to be retained. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This is an institution of many decades' duration. AfD should never be used as a method of asking for improvement in citations. (Full disclosure: I was briefly a member of FAPA, and am still a member of another SF a.p.a.). --Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 27 May 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communion of Western Orthodox Churches

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

The only independent source given, Thöle, only mentions the CWOC in passing. I can't find any source that actually covers their activities. There's no evidence that this communion is more than a loose agreement of three small like-minded denominations. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While autocephalic churches in communion with a significant church are almost always notable national branches of a church located outside that church's home country, this does not appear to be the situation for the "communion" among the three churches that are the subject of this article.[1] I would consider changing my vote if independent sources were found or the significant concepts and French sources were explained and verified. Ben Azura (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found one academic source that provides WP:SIGCOV, but not any other qualifying sources toward WP:GNG or WP:NORG. If anyone finds another one, ping me and I'll update my !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2024 (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.

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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French Orthodox Church

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

Fails GNG. Claims 10 communities in their own official website. The French version was deleted by consensus. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find independent sources that passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (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.

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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Legislative Analysis

AfDs for this article:

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

No change since the last AfD, coverage does not meet WP:ORGCRITE--the article's creator should have challenged the close by requesting that it be relisted, but instead went straight to RFUD. The additional sources linked in the discussion which they claim demonstrate notability do not include in-depth independent coverage of the organization that would satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the log over the last week shows I have made a number of attempts to address the concerns you raised. Additionally, I just added a piece on ILA's data (written 3 hours ago) by Fox News' Deroy Murdock on DailySignal (the platform of the largest conservative thinktank in the world). Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/24/democrats-not-republicans-are-capitol-hills-true-extremists/ Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking through the sources, this article fails WP:NORG. Needs more articles directly on the org itself - the article linked here is not at all significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please note the extensive write ups on the organization by both Fox News and state outlets:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-conservative-group-grades-lawmakers-limited-government-principles-see-where-yours-stands. https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html

Additionally, please note the utilization of the ILA by the Nikki Haley campaign and the fact the organization's CEO was named by the Washingtonian as one of the Top 500 most influential in nation on policy due to the impact of their reports. I believe all of those factors coupled with the significant number of mentions by Members of Congress confirm the ILA meets WP:NORG. I closely follow right-of-center political non-profits and can confirm the ILA's media coverage and influence far exceeds many of the other organizations with pages on Wikipedia. Finally, I will note that the ILA is only a little over a year old and clearly an up and coming organization if you do research into what it has done so far. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Gillette News-Record article might be borderline (though, being mostly quotes means that it wouldn't be secondary even though it's independent, and all four criteria have to be met by the same source). Being an up and coming organization is a clear indication that it is likely simply too soon to have an article on it, the criteria would normally only after they are already successful or prominent, not likely to do so in the future (i.e. § Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time). The Fox article does not clearly meet ORGIND, and even if we were to make an exception on the general consensus on think tanks in this case, the Daily Signal article is clearly WP:RSOPINION and therefore not considered reliable for statements of fact.

I would strongly advise if you do wish to continue working on an article about this organisation, that you do so as a draft, and not move it to mainspace without review by the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. While closely following such organisations would probably help you develop an article, I don't believe your evaluation of the sources accurately reflect the standards they are assessed on. As for the other organisations for which coverage on this one far exceeds, I would say they most likely would be deleted if they cannot be brought to standard, but most such articles are not reviewed regularly (after all, we have 6 million of them, that would take some time). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability bar for companies and organisations is deliberately set high. I'm not seeing "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The article about Wyoming legislators criticising a report from the organisation is not sufficient and not "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." as required. Per WP:SIRS, part of WP:NCORP, "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability." AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reviewed sources and feedback from discussion. It appears general consensus is Fox News and Gillette News Record pieces are borderline, but technically meet WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. I concur Daily Signal fails WP:ORGIND. Would like to see additional sources but believe enough to scrape by. Tremendous amount of attention provided to the org even if not necessarily primary WP source material is what I believe puts it over top. In just past 24 hours the org has been referenced by over dozen plus members of congress (press releases, socials, etc.) – clearly a very notable org. If this was an old/inactive org that's one thing, but WP has been more lenient to nonprofits. SamwiseTarly (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer SamwiseTarly has acknowledged that they are associated with the subject of this article; as such they have a conflict of interest with regard to this subject. I have given them a link to the appropriate guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Ok, well thanks for pointing out that social media stuff. Did more research as I just could not understand why/how the ILA could have this level of influence and following among so many members of congress and not also have a whole ton of other articles in its operation. Well, it turns out ILA is the affiliate of the Conservative Partnership Institute (a policy and research arm). That is why most of the press on ILA is primarily targeted to the studies and the findings. Anyhow, now have a number of other major sources like New York Times and Guardian to cite which should hopefully now finally solve any of the concerns folks have previously had. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/us/politics/trump-conservative-partnership-institute.html Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... The NYT article does not even mention ILA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Politicalorganizationjunkie - I've struck through your bolded 'keep' above - you have already cast a !vote, you can't cast another one. You are permitted to make general comments, but no more bolded 'keeps' please. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as a technical pass of ORGIND. If that isn't sufficiently clear, then an AfC review is required. Delete, and strongly advise against recreation without review. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:26, 31 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advitya

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Can be mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability_organizations Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage I can find, ineligible for coverage at that list per WP:CSC and the requirement for notability. BrigadierG (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable Market Workers Union

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

I looked for reliable sources and books but couldn't find anything. The article can be redirected. GrabUp - Talk 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Andhra Pradesh. GrabUp - Talk 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who de-PROD'd this article suggested a redirect to All India Trade Union Congress. Is there a reason you came to AFD instead? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I thought this should be discussed at Afd before redirecting it there. I have no reason other than that; I myself don’t want to redirect it. I also thought, if someone disagrees with me after the redirect, then what am I going to do? So, I don’t want to bear any burden. GrabUp - Talk 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is also questionable because I too could not find any source that can prove the existence or even an affiliation with All India Trade Union Congress. RangersRus (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't verify that this exists at all, or if it has continued to exist for the 19 years since the article was created (almost in its current form), or if is affiliated with the All India Trade Union Congress, or who "Moulana" is. Neither Google nor Bing can find anything. Without a source, this should be deleted without a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some search and could come up with nothing reliable that could verify if this page could be warranted. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Sudan–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic missions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Sudan, London

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

No useful secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are a government list of diplomatic missions and a source purportedly about a protest at the embassy more than a decade ago but which appears unrelated. Previously subject of contested PROD and contested merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Sudan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~redirect~~ Merge to Sudan–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic_missions as is typical for cases where the building is not itself notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the protests aren't mentioned in the main article, there's now something to merge, but the protests were about relations, not buildings. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantically protests can be about buildings (e.g. [2]), but these ones were not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the comment, pedantically. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found the source for the protests and fixed the article, so that information is now verified. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 48JCL ^(talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigate Europe

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

None of the sources that mention the subject cover it in depth, so fails the WP:SIRS test, and so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and Europe. UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As AFC reviewer, I'm a keep here. The article probably needs a bit of work, but it does appear to meet WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals on the surface, and appears to have been used and cited in a number of different reliable publication, as well as received coverage in various non-English sources, mainly French and Germans (see fr:Investigate_Europe for some more examples of this). I think that WP:GNG is met in this instance. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mdann52 is probably right. We tend to be more lenient with articles about sources anyway, because they have immediate practical value to editors (primarily when we are evaluating the reliability of sources for use in other articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mdann52. After reviewing several sources in the article, it's clear that criteria 3 and 4 of NMEDIA for newspapers are met, and possibly 1 too. (And yes, that's "just an essay", but in this case it provides a compelling reasoning for keeping this article. Also applicable is the similar essay WP:NNEWSPAPER, which clarifies that Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 05:37, 12 June 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Erasmus Student Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Student Network Armenia

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

Local branch of Erasmus Student Network, no independent notability. Broc (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Working on expanding the article. ESN Armenia is quite active and one of the more notable student organizations within the country. English publications may be limited as most of the content referencing the org is in Armenian. Will continue to expand with refs. Any help is appreciated :) Archives908 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a subsection of Erasmus Student Network. I do not think it is bad that the information is out there if verifiable and noteworthy enough to mention specifically, though ESN Armenia is hardly notorious enough to warrant their own WP article, considering that there are 44 national, and even more regional ESN network organisations. Note also that Erasmus Student Network Yerevan has also been created, and would merit the same treatment. --Konanen (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and Erasmus Student Network Yerevan into Erasmus Student Network. I can't find anything much other than social media or links to information and event involving the umbrella organisation in a search (including the sources in the article that I can read/translate), which suggests this is a local organisation not warranting it's own article. I note that none of the other national organisations have their own article, including ESN Russia and ESN UK, for example.— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:46, 6 June 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Sinema Project

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines; PAC largely became irrelevant to releated election; could be merged into background for 2024 United States Senate election in Arizona RenewIR (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irrelevant PAC, no merge needed as article is basically an unfiltered copy of the PAC's 'about us' page. Nate • (chatter) 16:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No significant coverage of the PAC itself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Sal2100 (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK Kozara (Sweden)

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 24 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Giffarna

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 24 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BK Skottfint

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:15, 24 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Sunnah Foundation

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

This article is written based on highly promotional, press releases and self published sources. Most of the sites are unreliable, some of them are recirculation of press releases, contain bank account information for collecting donations, some contain external links to the site of the organisation. I think the purpose of creation of this article is to promote the organisation. Topic of This article can be well explained in the article of the owner. Although I am not sure whether the owner's article warrants his own article or not. - AlbeitPK (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 14:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pahle India Foundation

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

This appears to be a non-notable organization with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search for "Pahle India Foundation" yields only a few passing mentions and routine coverage, but nothing that satisfies the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. GSS ^💬 12:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my checking, I found nothing that can establish notability to the subject, It subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 13:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Page fails general notability guidelines and fails notability for the organization to be warranted for a separate Wikipedia article. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. RangersRus (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gasable

AfDs for this article:

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

Little indication of notability. The Jordan Times reference reads more like an ad and comes from a source of questionable reliability, and the second source only mentions it in passing. I could find an article by the UN environment programme [3], but I don't think that comes anywhere close to establishing notability. OzzyOlly (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jordan. OzzyOlly (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about an e-business app, unchanged since it was restored at request of the article creator after a previous AfD soft deletion. Since the previous AfD, the company appears to have moved its base and broadened its operation. An article here describes the company's change in personnel / location, but this still appears to be coverage promoting a niche startup; I am not seeing the depth of coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AllyD. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2024 (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.

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 speedy keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkawkaw Senior High School

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

Nothing much to be notable. While I agree with WP:NSCHOOLS, "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." I can't find any WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE for a simple article. WP:SIRS already was not enough except for the schools 50th anniversary. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may not be the most influential school in all of Ghana, but it meets the GNG and WP:NORG. See source analysis below. Bgv. (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Babegriev, I still guess why this and this should be called WP:SIGCOV or attribution for WP:GNG. Per WP:NHSCHOOL, these are type of sources used to clarify a school exist just not about notability. It was a passing mention of "breaking a teacher's windscreen or thereabout" in this source, and here about a set/class that did something for the school (which is no way notability). It's very hard to see this things and say a school lacks notability, that's why even the SNG guideline says "all school are assumed to be notable". You can also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.ghanaiantimes.com.gh/nkawkaw-shs-celebrates-50th-anniversary/	No association with subject known	Meets WP:NEWSORG	School is the subject of the article	✔ Yes
https://newsghana.com.gh/nkawkaw-shs-lacks-logistics/	No association with subject known	~ Appears to meet WP:NEWSORG	Critical article about the school and its administration	~ Partial
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1119989/solution-to-west-african-senior-school-certificate.html	No association with subject known	Meets WP:NEWSORG	Speaks to the school's involvement with a state examination controversy.	✔ Yes
https://www.modernghana.com/news/817913/nkawkaw-senior-high-school-receives-support-from-1992-year-g.html	No association with subject	Meets WP:NEWSORG	Coverage of alumna's philanthropy to school.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Did the nominator create this source assessment table? Because if so, it looks like they are putting forth an argument to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Bgv. I agree that it meets GNG and WP:NORG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I withdraw my nomination I now agree after cleaning up the article. In future, I will always be willing to clean up first before nominating. I agree with the source assessment table at least for the fact the school exists. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:36, 4 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn G. Rabb Foundation

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

There is nothing online that suggests the organisation still exists. The Guidestar website (https://www.guidestar.org/profile/36-4416453#financials) has the following comment: "This organization has not appeared on the IRS Business Master File in a number of months. It may have merged with another organization or ceased operations. This organization's exempt status was automatically revoked by the IRS for failure to file a Form 990, 990-EZ, 990-N, or 990-PF for 3 consecutive years. Further investigation and due diligence are warranted" suggesting it may be defunct or merged. Very limited info on existing wiki page. Previous organisation website does not appear to exist. Need to find evidence to support notability or delete. Newhaven lad (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked up this organization in the Illinois Secretary of State's online database. Apparently it changed its name to "MGR Youth Empowerment" in 2013, and then dissolved in 2015. So the question is whether it was notable during its existence before it dissolved. For reference, their IRS returns through 2011 can be viewed on Candid.org at https://beta.candid.org/profile/7500383 if it makes a difference. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there do not seem to be any secondary references about the (defunct) organization; merely tax filings and in-passing mentions relating to events the group funded. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (12 May 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to once again initiate the deletion of the article, based on the same rationale presented during the initial deletion discussion. - "Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND." TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion (again)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wouldn't be surprising if this page ends in soft deletion again, and someone would request a WP:REFUND. It's fine if no one joins in a deletion discussion, but it's very surprising that the creator who asked for the refund hasn't made any updates to this refunded page and hasn't participated in this discussion or previous ones. As a nominator, I am making a request to continue this deletion discussion for another round for one last time. If the page meets WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SIRS and WP:HEY, then I'll withdraw the nomination. TCBT1CSI (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Here's your quorum. Doesn't meet NCORP, especially the bits about "reliable sources" and "No inherited notability" – just because they were bought and sold by StanChart once doesn't make them notable, and the sources seem like glorified press/data releases. Toadspike [Talk] 00:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. an AFD discussion can't close as Soft Deletion twice. And since there has already been an AFD Soft Deletion is not an option at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess investment firms are just boring as hell and no one wants to vote on them. Can't say I blame them. I'm not seeing anything other than transactional and routine announcements about performance and press releases confirming existence. BrigadierG (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Summit Open Source Development Group

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this organization, and the only mentions I can find just note that they maintained the Abusive Hosts Blocking List. Either a redirect or delete would be a good outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, Internet, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind getting rid of this article. Honestly it only really exists because of a situation a long time ago and really the org is in almost read-only state at this point since I'm retired from IT. Brielle (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (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.

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. ✗plicit 14:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apni Party Pakistan

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

Fails GNG as well WP:NORG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:NORG. If it had won a seat in the national or provincial parliament there would be some presumption of notability at least. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. The only reference is a list of all the political parties in Pakistan – 168 of them. They're not all notable, or worthy of mention. Many, if not most, will disappear without a candidate who wins anything, or having any noteworthy coverage. If its candidate wins a seat in the next election, or in a few years, it can have an article. Unless notability is established in some way, this one should be deleted. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A single sentence and a single source simply stating that the party exists isn't enough for notability. The party hasn't won a single election yet (that I could find), nor could I find any reporting of the party, or even a profile on what the party believes. We just don't have enough for an article at this point. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, articles author made a request for undeletion before this deletion discussion was finished. This could be relevant. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2024 (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.

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism

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

Not at all at G4, but the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Project against Hate and Extremism of the citation of reports vs. WP:ORG level coverage remain true. Bringing it back here for discussion. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Alabama. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to all participants in the prior AfD: @MarioGom, Alsee, Cullen328, LordPeterII, DanielRigal, TheresNoTime, and Idoghor Melody: Star Mississippi 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As of now (permalink), sources 1 to 5 are not independent and do not count towards notability. The rest of the sources cite reports by the organization, and some (like the one from apublica.org) go quite into depth into the reports, but still there does not seem to be in-depth coverage about the organization itself. It does not seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but the content of sources 6 to 10 would be due in various other articles. MarioGom (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be honest I only found out about the previously deleted article when creating a redirect at GPAHE. I think the deletion in 2022 was adequate, but the organization's publications have since generated numerous news pieces including from CNN Portugal and Diário de Notícias, besides the above mentioned apublica.org. While these sources don't exclusively cover GPAHE itself, they do mention the organization extensively (at least one paragraph in each of those, and several in DN), they're entirely based on GPAHE's reports and cite them throughout. IMHO this is enough to attest significant coverage while clearly being independent, reliable and secondary. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also recommended in the 2022 AfD. There has been no significant change in the quality of the sourcing that I can see. According to WP:NORG, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. I do not believe that the coverage of this organization rises to the level required by the relevant notability guideline, and I believe that Alsee analyzed the matter very thoroughly in 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: with all due respect, I think you're reading too much into that particular part of WP:NORG. Firstly, "well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" - at least the three pieces I mentioned above, and many many others, do go well beyond brief mentions. They're not news pieces about something that were written independently of the organiation and then cite it in passing somewhere in the middle of the article. They're entire pieces built around the organization's reports and that give substantial coverage to the organization itself. The fact that this coverage isn't about the history of the organization isn't all there is to it. The pieces are about the organization's work and that cannot be ignored. A Pública's piece mentions GPAHE eight times throughout the text, as does Diário de Notícias. Surely that does not qualify as "brief mentions". Lastly, I call your attention to WP:NONPROFIT: the group must act nationally or internationally and, more importantly, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." I find that having their work featured in full pieces from outlets in Portugal, Brazil, the US, the UK and other places should be enough to cover both of those points. Mind you that none of the three articles I mentioned were published during the previous discussion: they're from jun/23, jan/24 and apr/24. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rkieferbaum, we disagree about how WP:NORG should be interpreted. That's OK. I stand by my recommendation, but if consensus develops to keep the article, so be it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't !vote last time but I think it is a weak keep this time. There are 70 hits in Google Scholar and several pages of Google News hits showing that academics and Reliable Sources take them seriously and are happy to use their research as a source but I don't see anybody covering the organisation itself as a primary subject, which is what it would take to move it from a weak keep to a full strength keep. If anybody can find something like that, even if it is not in English, then I think that would secure the keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous references in reliable sources, including several from scientific publications available at Google Scholar. Direct and extensive coverage at some of the most well known Portuguese newspapers, like Público, DN, Sábado, etc. I don't have any doubts about its relevance. Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel resonance with User:DanielRigal as there seem to be yet further articles that quote the organization. If increasing numbers of prominent publications mention the organization, then perhaps there is a point at which the subject should be considered sufficiently notable, perhaps. Some additional articles mentioning them that are not used in the article:

CapnPhantasm (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cullen; the issues from the prior AfD persist. The fact that they were mentioned in a couple newspaper stories doesn't really seem to change this. If not deleted, then this article at a minimum needs to be stubified -- it is unbelievably promotional and reads like a press release. The organization's mission is to strengthen and educate a diverse global community committed to exposing and countering racism, bigotry, and hate, and associated violence; and to promote the human rights values that support flourishing, inclusive societies and democracies? Holy freaking Christmas, what a mess. jp×g 🗯️ 01:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just semi'ed to stop the disruption. I'm the nom, but I don't see this as controversial. If you do, please feel free to request it reverted (or do it if you're an admin) Star Mississippi 13:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the Portuguese sources, the coverage is not really about the organization, but is more about a claim the organization has made. All the other references brought up appear to be passing mentions (including the academic references I clicked through on Google Scholar). I think if there were one or two more solid sources, this organization would have a good argument for notability, but right now it is not there. If it is determined there is no consensus to delete or keep the article, I agree with JPxG that this needs to either be stubified and/or sent to the draft space to deal with the promotional writing. If I came across this without a few of the sources, I would think this is a good candidate for speedy deletion via G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Malinaccier (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Paws

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

Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Procedural Close, as no deletion argument has been presented. The article certainly needs to be rewritten to remove POV issues, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the references in the article already present the subject's notability. Silver seren^C 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is requested based on dated news articles, no more relevant. 1nicknamesb (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being sourced to older articles is not a basis for deletion alone, but only [4] appears to be significant coverage of the organization itself so I don't think it passes WP:NORG. The sources seem to be news (WP:NOTNEWS) about an injured dog and imported pets or routine coverage of a small local organization. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.

These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. Silver seren^C 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A flawed nomination is not a reason for a procedural close once a valid Delete !vote has been voiced. Please address the sourcing to determine if this meets our guidelines. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:06, 30 May 2024 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff

AfDs for this article:

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

The prior AfD closed in January, but I don't believe these changes, while not a G4, are sufficient to render a different outcome and the mall still fails WP:CORP. While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid. Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Organizations, Companies, and Nebraska. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP: Omaha World-Herald, Star-Herald, and two KNEB sources: [5], [6]. (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.) I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned "keep" then as well. (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging comment from TPH located here. They are not able to participate here but I believe are able to opine and so flagging to be sure it's not missed by closer. Star Mississippi 00:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources to justify keeping the article. There are some individual sources here I would not have used myself, but that does not affect the weight of the other sources. Esw01407 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:40, 21 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Development Fund

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Non-notable CFORK. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Subject homepage, fails WP:IS	1. "Homepage". Raza Development Fund. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Database profile, appears to be self sourced, fails WP:SIRS	2. ^ "Raza Development Fund, Inc. - GuideStar Profile". www.guidestar.org. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Service provider page, appears to be self sourced, fails WP:SIRS	3. ^ "Raza Development Fund, Inc". Housing Partnership Network. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Primary, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Annie Donovan". Raza Development Fund. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
From prnewswire, promotional routine news, fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ UnidosUS. "Raza Development Fund (RDF) names Annie Donovan as its new President and CEO". www.prnewswire.com. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Linkedin profile, fails WP:SIRS	LinkedIn". www.linkedin.com. 2023-05-10. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. No objection to a consensus redirect/merge of properly sourced content to UnidosUS (I would have boldly done so but it would have been reverted). // Timothy :: talk 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a lot of knowledge about english wikipedia guidelines. If it can't stay it can be deleted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. אקסינו (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 27 May 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Federation

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

Declined prod. A google news search found only 3 sources of routine coverage. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kerala. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable organization. When you say only 3 sources, in which language did you google? Here are some results, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] --Soman (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English. Most of the sources you found are local and we need wider coverage as per WP:AUD. I would caution using youtube as a source as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As I'm sure you are aware, not all news around the world is in English. The sources here include Mathrubhumi which has a readership of 970,000 daily, Asianet (TV channel), Kerala Kaumudi, etc. If you read WP:AUD it literally says " Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability." If Kerala was located in the US, it would be the second-most populous state after California. --Soman (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grampian Flyers B.C.

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

This may meet a little notability but in the current state lacks sources. My research showed they are trivially mention in news articles and those, doesn't seem to be notability. Per SE, doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Redirect can also be better if there is any. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Basketball, and Scotland. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any potential redirects?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 27 May 2024 (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.

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. Also, can not redirect to [[Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia[[ as that page is a redirect itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia

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

Fails GNG, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This appears to be an incomplete new creation and should have been draftified instead of AfD'd. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A cursory search shows multiple independent RS covering the subject in English, Romanian and Russian.Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be coverage in English-language scholarly sources ([21] [22], both paywalled but which had substantial text matches in Google Scholar results snippets), and likely more in Romanian, Gagauz, Turkish or other languages. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. While it has been asserted by the minority of keep !voters that there are sources that establish GNG, sources that go beyond mere-mentions have not been identified in this discussion, and it seems likely that some coverage of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft may have been mistaken for coverage of this title, the expanded Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft that is the focus of this discussion. It has been noted that this title is a redirect on de.wiki to the relevant Donaudampf... root article. Between delete, merge and redirect, the discussion focused on whether there has been any mention of this specific variation in RS; such mention has been identified, but there does not appear to be agreement that there is sufficient coverage beyond such a mention to justify merging (of course, editors who find coverage supporting the inclusion of WP:DUE material at the target are welcome to add such material there as a bold edit). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

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

Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [23]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".

Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:

This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Transportation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources I find are the Urban Dictionary and various word groups, none of which help notability. Almost survived for 20 yrs in wiki without deletion. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, though the English language sources only show novelty, and the German sources aren't fantastic - however between the tango, the company, and the fact the word is used in German as an example of German compound word usage. [24] is one example. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like merging with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a viable option. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a good idea if there's a couple reliable sources, yeah. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word is notable in its own right given the tango and the discussion of its length in reliable German language sources, but given there's another merge suggested to a different page, I think a merge to the company makes more sense if that is the chosen deletion alternative. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The German wikipedia has more context and sources. This might not need a stand-alone article but there's enough coverage to avoid deletion. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This title is a redirect in the German Wikipedia, not an article of its own; de:Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft redirects to the somewhat shorter de:Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Striking user banned for this behavior (User_talk:Okmrman#Please_stop). Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it actually existed or not, reliable sources have long reported it and it has gone down in legend as one of the longest words in history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a particularly good reason to keep the article though -- "gone down in legend"? Really? Come gather 'round, kids, while I tell you the story of the great Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft. How do sources "report" a word? None of what you're saying makes any reasonable sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to German nouns § Compounds, where a brief mention might be appropriate. You might even be able to justify a standalone article on long German words, with this example certainly worth mentioning, but WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOPAGE pretty strongly favor not having a standalone article here. There's simply nothing to say about the word itself other than "it's long". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, just one of many made-up extensions of that word. There are no reliable sources, unlike for the Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, which used to be a real law. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this does not appear to have been an actual organization, but rather a name contrived to be an example of an unusually long German word. However, if this name is mentioned in some other article here on the English Wikipedia such as German nouns#Compounds, it can be redirected to that article. Do not redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, the actual shipping company with which this supposed organization would have been affiliated if it had actually existed, because people who look up this word (if anybody does) are probably interested in it as a word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already also covered there, though. SportingFlyer T·C 03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a made-up word, existing purely as an exceptionally long curiosity, of dictionary value at best (if it even belongs there). It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kusma if there is sourcing. The Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft has (unsourced) claims of other silly long words derived from its name. But: is there sourcing this ever was a word, other than the Guinness Book of World Records and user-generated content like H2G2? Walsh90210 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without proven sourcing, deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should clarify. My question was on sourcing of The name of the company is well known in German-speaking countries as a starter to humorously construct even longer compound words. Even if this specific word was made-up for the Guinness Book of World Records (which seems plausible), I would support a redirect if there is other sourcing for that statement. It is hard to tell from an English-language Google search whether there is anything other than "people quoting Wikipedia" there. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to search in German, as that's where it's a novelty. It might not qualify for WP:GNG in English, but if you set your compass for German there's coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In German it is basically a children's game to construct long extensions of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. Most made-up extensions are more convincing than this one (no educated native German speaker would use "-elektrizitäten-" instead of the correct "-elektrizitäts-" in this context) so I guess that is why this particular choice of made-up extension is more notable in English (albeit not very notable) than in German. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG if you read the German article. Other long compounds of the same origin, such as Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsanwärterposten, can be redirected to this article. Jonashtand (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The German Wikipedia doesn't have an article by this name. de:Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft is a redirect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, probably to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. The Guinness source used on the German Wikipedia is sufficient for verifiability, but not notability. I suggest that the content of this article can be summarised into a single short paragraph in the target article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least support Merge & Redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. Theoretical word, mostly a joke. German WP includes mention of it as an artificial creation:
Das Wort ist ein beliebtes Beispiel für komplexe Mehrfachkomposita und deren Probleme im Bereich der Linguistik und Computerlinguistik in Thesauren, Übersetzungsprogrammen und Suchabfragen. In Österreich, wo die Gesellschaft beheimatet war, ist es wahrscheinlich das Paradebeispiel. Es wird gerne als Ausgangspunkt für Wortspielereien wie die Ableitung noch längerer künstlich zusammengesetzter – aber grammatikalisch korrekter – Hauptwörter wie

Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsanwärterposten
Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajütenschlüsselloch
Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft
Oberdonaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenkokarde

und ähnlichem genutzt. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:49, 26 May 2024 (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.

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing

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

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand the nominator's concerns, this clearly meets the GNG, and sources like [25] from 2021 show that it is still relevant to tech education in Pakistan. The article doesn't seem very promotional to me, and adding some of the criticism from that source I linked would help. This isn't some initiative that was announced and then disappeared – as far as I can tell, it is still operating and has a large number of students (in the thousands). Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added three sentences of (largely) criticism from that source. I hope that addresses some of the PROMO concerns. Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 22 May 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation

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

Article is completely unsourced and subject does not seem to be notable. Quick Google News skim shows only two vague news articles about this Foundation [26] [27]. GoldRomean (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - written at a time when sources were helpful but not always neccesary. No evidence of notability in the current climate. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"subject does not seem to be notable...." Except to the worldwide community of those who collect, study, and research postal history and postage stamps. 2601:282:1C00:8A10:9146:9250:A151:B8D9 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regretably that is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Notability has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia and that is the criteria that must be met. Popularity with philatelists is of interest, but does not contribute to notability unless this particular subject is discussed in multiple independent and reliable sources. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Canadian auction house Sparks calls Greene "the pre-eminent expert committee for the stamps of Canada and British North America." That's probably not a reliable source, but it ought to be a hint that there's something there. Indeed, there's coverage in philatelic periodicals. Appropriately for a Canada-centric topic, Canada Stamp News has spent a lot of time talking about Greene: [28][29][30][31][32] and so forth. I suspect a great deal of discussion in Linn's and Gibbon Stamp Monthly, but both of them have paywalled archives (and the former's archive is a sad "archive", going back to ~2008 for a publication that debuted in 1928!). Digitization rates for reference material in this field are terrible; a lot of the significant coverage here is going to be in print. Lubal (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm a bit concerned that the Canada Stamp News and Linn's sources identified by Lubal and Eastmain here or in the article lack bylines and that the publications don't appear to publish mastheads, but I'm swayed by Lubal's arguments to the effect of WP:NEXIST. Searching on Google Books, there appear to be many matches in philately publications (both academic and otherwise), although I wasn't able to access any that clearly have significant coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 28 May 2024 (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.

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 Leinster Chess Leagues, to which the other pages will redirect. Noteworthy and verifiable content from the latter can be incorporated into the former at editorial discretion‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster Chess Leagues

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

The Leinster Chess Leagues article, and the articles I am combining in my nomination below that represent to tropies of the different leagues for the main article, fail the test of independent notability for each article and further, these articles are large WP:NOTDATABASE violations and full of WP:OR. This content would be better suited on the website of the organization and not Wikipedia as the pages often boil down to league rules and not secondary independent coverage.

Also nomintated for deletion:

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, Organizations, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a reply in the Talk page attached to this article. If you cannot read that reply I will copy it here. With thanks, sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You should copy your reply here yourself. A closing admin may not (and is not necessarily expected to) search for comments placed outside the AfD discussion thread. You could consider leaving out the parts, of your comment, which are unrelated to the concerns raised in the AfD nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnPDLoughran are you associated at all with the Leinster Chess Leagues or any of their associated divisions? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Marcus, copying my reply here as directed. Please excuse me as I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was confused as to where to post it. Some of the help files are confusing and mention the Talk area as a way to respond. Can I ask, should I prepend this reply with something like {{MicrobiologyMarcus}}? Here is my edited reply and answer to your query.

I was shocked to see that you were recommending the deletion of a large number of articles relating to chess in Ireland. These are valuable resources not only of current but also of historic interest, albeit to a small population of chess players. The Leinster Chess Leagues page links the different articles including one on the Armstrong Cup which I read with interest. It started in 1888 and may be one of the oldest such competitions in the world. The information in these articles is supported by two independent Irish chess history websites which are not affiliated to the Leinster Leagues. They quote many independent sources of information including newspaper articles, one written in 1888. If you delete these articles you will delete a valuable resource. Because the chess playing population is so small it is difficult to source more independent references, although I am continuing to work on this with collaborators, and I would be glad of advice on ways to improve this. Needless to say I am new to publishing in an encyclopaedia. One of the articles which first spurred my interest was the article on Chess in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Regarding my links with the Leinster Chess Union. Firstly I am a player on a team that competes in the leagues, and currently the chairperson of Skerries Chess Club. I have no official membership of the LCU. Our club pays them a small fee to participate in the leagues each year. While it is true that Skerries did win the BEA Cup one year, it was before I was a member, so I had no personal interest in writing that first article. I added the article on the Leinster Chess Leagues after that simply to link various articles on each league together, and to avoid duplication of material within each league article. The reason I wrote the article on the BEA Cup was that we were given it by accident. Because it was a cup which had been donated in 1972 and passed from club to club since then and miraculously survived I felt it was worthy of note, so I did quite a lot of research, still ongoing, to discover the winners each season and record them in the article as well as taking a picture of this, in my opinion, priceless artefact, before getting its base repaired. I am of course open to suggestions as to how to improve the articles (BEA Cup or Leagues article) but I would be deeply disappointed to see these articles disappear, even moreso if their deletion was to have a knock on effect of causing the deletion of other valuable articles, which I had no hand in writing, on the other Leauges: Armstrong etc. With thanks, yours sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two independent sources in the article are WP:BLOGS and are therefore not reliable. I was able to find a few brief news items in the Irish Independent: [33] [34], but it doesn't seem like quite enough on its own to demonstrate notability for the leagues, much less for the individual divisions. I would either redirect everything to Irish Chess Union#Team competitions or otherwise redirect/merge the divisions into the Leinster Chess Leagues article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that the blogs cited old newspapers. If these sources can be confirmed, the individual divisions might very well be notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are several titles here to consider, my own recommendation is to:

Delete O'Sullivan Cup. This article, on the seventh (childrens?) tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient reliable sources to even support its text. Not to mind a claim to notability. Under any applicable criteria. (The article itself states that there aren't sufficient sources to establish what happened in relatively recent runnings of the competition. I mean, we're relying on this random picture to "guess" that the people (children?) pictured might have come third in 2015? Seriously?)
Delete BEA Cup. This article, on the fifth tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient sources to support its text. The author (within the text) states that there aren't even sources to establish who won the competition on any given year. That we reliant upon "reading the engravings off a cup" (and using that as a basis for content AND justification a stand-alone article) is a very clear indication that WP:SIGCOV is not met. By a significant margin. The thing (the cup) cannot be a reference for itself or represent coverage of itself. It's just backwards and bizarre.
Redirect Armstrong Cup, Heidenfeld Trophy and Ennis Shield. And maybe O'Hanlon Cup. Either to Leinster Chess Leagues (if that title is kept). Or to Irish_Chess_Union#Team competitions (if not). Similar to the above, I have significant concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the sources and content in those articles. And do not see any justification for the project being a WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST repo for previous winners of these amateur regional chess competitions. However, there is some limited coverage - to just about justify a redirect as an WP:ATD. And to mention the competitions WP:WITHIN the target article. For example, the Armstrong Cup is mentioned (almost always in passing and always/only in regional newspapers), in places like this, this and this. Which could justify covering it in either the Leinster Chess Leagues or Irish Chess Union articles. And perhaps leaving a redirect.
Weak keep Leinster Chess Leagues (or redirect to Irish_Chess_Union#Competitions). While I'm not swayed by the creator's arguments ("I'm shocked", "It's useful", "supported by 2x special interest websites"), there is a small smattering of limited coverage in some local sources. Like this, this and this or this. If kept, as a standalone title, the article needs significant work however.

My 2x cents anyway. FWIW. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment with many, many thanks to @Guliolopez for collecting a list of sources. I want to preface this by saying I am trying to be fair and impartial and stave off concerns that I am attacking a particular chess league or its members and, should the evidence arrive that any or all of the articles I nominated are WP:Notable, I will gladly change my vote. Please let me know, I would be happy to add to the following table. As it stands, I still believe the articles are a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE and would need to be reworked, but I am a big believer in WP:THREE. With that said:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:MicrobiologyMarcus
"Garden squad win promotion". Irish Independent. 4 April 2012.		coverage about a team winning a match to advance to the Ennis Shield, a part of Leinster Chess league, does not surpass trivial coverage of either of those subjects.	✘ No
"Chess Club". Irish Independent. 11 March 2009.		? I would evaluate this as significant coverage of the tournament/event, I don't now if I would consider that coverage to be of the league itself, or if coverage of this extent would be inherited to the organization, such to meet WP:NCORP	? Unknown
"Chess club wins promotion to division two after dramatic final round of matches". Irish Independent. 14 June 2023.		as the first, coverage is of a club with trivial mentions of Leinster Chess League and Ennis Shield	✘ No
"It's checkmate for local club at Leinster Finals". Irish Independent. 11 May 2011.		? I would say this may meet SIGCOV of Leinster Chess Championships, which again is not the leagues. The extend of the coverage of that in the article is The cup was first competed for as far back as 1912 and has been won by a distinguished list of top Irish chess players over the years. The rest is, as before, coverage of the tournament/event with the same inheritance concerns.	? Unknown
"Chess club move into history books". Irish Independent. 24 April 2003.		subject of the coverage is again a club with passing trivial mentions of Heidenfeld trophy and Armstrong Cup	✘ No
"Chess mates descend on Bray". Irish Independent. 17 March 2010.		? strongest argument for SIGCOV of the tournamentevent articles in my opinion, coverage of the 203-word article is split equally among the event and then between the season structure of Leinster Chess Union League ("The league begins in September every year and lasts until March.") and the history of Armstrong Cup ("...new owners of the infamous Armstrong Cup, which was first presented in the 1888-1889 league, therefore making it one of the oldest sporting competitions in Ireland.")	? Unknown
"Chess club has come a long way over 25 years". Irish Independent. 3 August 2005.	interview with a member club member	? this is definetly SIGCOV of a club with probably acceptable mentions of Leinster Leagues ("...in the Leinster Leagues that run from September to March each year.")	✘ No
"Chess Club finally secure Ennis Shield". Irish Independent. 8 May 2002.		coverage of a club with mentions of the Ennis Shield, same inheritance concerns with all tournament/event articles, but even weaker argument here as the article itself isn't about the event.	✘ No
"Your weekly sporting club notes". Irish Independent. 3 October 2006.		trivial coverage of the tournament/event Heidenfeld Shield mentioned, nothing in depth about subject or organization	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would gladly add to the above table if sources are provided, or if you believe my assessment of any of the above are wrong, I would be happy to discuss. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the sources and analysis done to date in the table, I feel the like strongest !keep argument would be to have a Leinster Chess Union League as that seems to be the most frequently used identifier of the WP:NCORP, but I think this would come down to how strong the passing mentions are of the leagues in the event coverage above, and whether the coverage of the event is WP:Inherited to the Chess Union League itself or not, and whether the coverage satisfies as significant; I'm leaning no, based on my reading of WP:SIGCOV:

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

but I would understand where this might be interpreted differently here. Given that, then all the other articles could be redirects (see WP:CHEAP) and the ones which are sourced by only event coverage could have their own sections on the main article. I think that would be the strongest possible argument for keep, however, given the current references. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A chess blog website claims that newspapers such as the Irish Times and Irish Press have written some sort of coverage about the various leagues decades ago, e.g. for the Branagan Cup. I have no idea what this coverage looks like, whether it's also trivial, etc. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. With respect to WP:OFFLINE, I can't help but feel as if these were present and properly cited in the article, they would be suitable, but to mass copy and paste them into an article from their collection on the organisation's website feels less-than-inline with WP:V. Given the context of the page, I would suspect someone has gone back (probably very labouriously) to compile the records and statistics of the page, but I doubt they are significant coverage of the organisation itself in such a manner to establish WP:NCORP. They would, however, be suitable to cite the (probably WP:NOTDATABASE violation that is the laundry) list of past winners, in such a manner to satisfy WP:OR concerns—that is, the ones that cite news articles and not tweets. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge my sense of the source analysis is we have enough coverage for the topic to have an article. I'm not sure which article title is best. We do have reason to believe there are offline sources too. For now I'd say keep Leinster Chess Leagues and merge the rest (a couple sentences at most for all but the Armstrong Cup) into it. I'm happy to take an expansive view of this article having coverage count that covers those various topics... Hobit (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main page, merge and redirect cups, stubify to verifiable facts: As the nom, I think I'm the only hold questioning notability. For consensus, I would concede notability for the main league given the breadth of coverage, in spite of my SIGCOV concerns above. I think altogether these pages should be merged to the main article, the cup pages redirected, and the articles signifcantly reduced to simply contain facts and not the long NOTDATABASE violations. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:29, 23 May 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Privateers

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team easily passes GNG due to substantial news coverage in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Here are a few of the more recent news on the team. [35][36][37][38][39] I question whether the nominator completed WP:BEFORE on this nomination. I'm baffled what is meant by "Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct". As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article might be poorly sourced in its current state, but can easily be improved. Flibirigit (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed complete a before search. I found numerous news articles regarding the move of the team, all based on press releases. I found routine coverage, e.g. of matches. I found articles based on what a spokesperson for the team said, without WP:SECONDARY analysis. I found nothing that was WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT to satisfy GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Flibirigit. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunate accusations against the nominator aside, there's nothing approaching significant coverage applied, linked above, or found during my reasonable BEFORE which renders this subject sufficiently notable for its own article. I see no evidence this can be improved. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BusterD: There was no intent to accuse anyone of anything. My only intent was to convey that I felt a BEFORE was not done. We simply disagree on the sources. I have nothing personal against @Curb Safe Charmer:. Best wishes and happy editing. Flibirigit (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Flibirigit: And that language would have been more appropriate to a civil disagreement, like AfD. "I-messages" are helpful because they're not so threatening. We must be able to argue freely, even sometimes beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Sometimes screaming is quite necessary. Give yourself permission to step over the line occasionally, if in doing so you might push our entire Wikipedia movement forward. IMHO, that's the heart of WP:IAR. I am proud to participate in a process in which civil disagreement makes us a stronger (and more cohesive) community. Nice to meet you. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately I'm not convinced that the new sources linked here are enough to establish notability. They're all fairly routine, and the best sources are still almost entirely reliant on press releases or press conferences. CarringtonMist (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have received enough reliable press to tell the story (i.e., meets GNG). Here's another article on their closure. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:16, 26 May 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:John Canning Studios Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Organizations deletion

Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka)

Fantasy Amateur Press Association

Communion of Western Orthodox Churches

French Orthodox Church

Institute for Legislative Analysis

Advitya

Vegetable Market Workers Union

Embassy of Sudan, London

Investigate Europe

Erasmus Student Network Armenia

Replace Sinema Project

FK Kozara (Sweden)

FC Giffarna

BK Skottfint

As Sunnah Foundation

Pahle India Foundation

Gasable

Nkawkaw Senior High School

Marilyn G. Rabb Foundation

Bandhan Mutual Fund

The Summit Open Source Development Group

Apni Party Pakistan

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism

Redemption Paws

Uptown Scottsbluff

Raza Development Fund

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Federation

Grampian Flyers B.C.

Executive Committee of Gagauzia

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing

Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation

Leinster Chess Leagues

Liverpool Privateers

Proposed deletions

Categories