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!} 21:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philmont Training Center

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:Before via newspaper and library search shows no independent sources covering the center itself in depth. All current sources are from the organization that runs it or a conference listing. spryde | talk 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. spryde | talk 19:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the reasons outlined by spryde.
Axad12 (talk) 18:41, 17 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. No one is arguing for retention, nor is there indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 13:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dana KCM

AfDs for this article:

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

Charitable foundation that doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. Created 10 years ago by an account that did nothing else on Wikipedia, no content edits or inbound links have been made since. The references are two old, deleted newspaper articles simply repeating the foundation's press release. It really doesn't seem like the sort of coverage we'd need to write a decent article on this subject. Searching for other sources I just get social media hits suggesting this foundation might not have been active past 2015. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be one book reference, but I just deleted it because it didn't actually say what the article said that it did (it was just the authors of a study thanking the foundation for a grant in 1 sentence, and non-significant) Mrfoogles (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've conducted a search in books and news sources and couldn't find anything of value to justify inclusion per WP:NORG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 21 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!} 05:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Genealogical and Historical Society

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

Local history society that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The below is a high-level analysis of sources present in the article at time of nom:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Sources 1-4		~ Blogs and user sites	Basic listings	✘ No
Sources 6-7	WP:SELFPUB	WP:SELFPUB	?	✘ No
American Press article			~ Although this is predominantly coverage of the person, and notability is not WP:INHERITED, there is some SIGCOV of the society.	~ Partial
Sources 9-13	~ Varies	~ Varies	Many of these sources do not even mention the article subject; at best they are WP:PASSING mentions.	✘ 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}}.

Other coverage that I have been able to locate essentially falls into one of these same three categories: WP:ROUTINE mentions in genealogical material; WP:PRIMARY sources published by the org themselves - not an indicator of notability; and trivial mentions in sources concentrating on other subjects.

While this appears to be an active organisation, it also appears to be at best a case of WP:LOCALFAME. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Louisiana. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed on the above assessment. Not a widely-known or widely-referred-to organization.

WmLawson (talk) 13:15, 16 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!} 07:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers' Association of Malmfälten

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

Afd created at the request of User:Dencoolast33. Presumably for lack of notability (local political organisation which once won one seat) and lack of sources (tagged as unsourced since 2009), but it would be best if they explained their reasoning here.

(note: the addition of deletion sorting categories like "Sweden" or "Politics" doesn't seem to work in Twinkle at the moment, hence no delsort added). Fram (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sweden and Politics. Ingratis (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it lacks sources, structure, notebility and content. A simple look at it would make you understand why it should be deleted. Dencoolast33 (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason to cover political entities in a single Swedish muncipality with very limited success. I could say merge to United Socialists, but that too rather looks like a candidate for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's very limited coverage in Swedish media archives. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources given and very little coverage. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 17:38, 19 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village communities

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

This article was created [1] as a copy of a 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article and the Who Wrote That? tool shows that 89.1% of the current text is the same as 1911. What initially struck me as odd was the article's complete and total focus on Europe. The 1911 encyclopedia's explanation for why it was "sufficient to confine the present inquiry ... to nations of Aryan race" was "principally because the Aryan race in its history has gone through all sorts of experiences" (it also said that it "might also be reasonably urged" that the Aryan race was most important, yikes). The section explaining the Aryan focus was removed from the article in 2008, [2] and since then the total focus on Europe has been unexplained. So there are the content issues, and now here is why I think the best path forward is deletion. I thought about merging Village communities into Village but I do not consider any of the info in Village communities to be worthy of inclusion. I'm disconcerted by phrases like "we hear that" and "a good clue to the subject is provided by a Serb proverb" that suggest a tenuous relationship to verifiable fact. The 1911 Britannica might be a reliable source in articles like University court or Castle-guard, which deal with old European history, but I don't think it's a reliable source here. Plus even if I were to improve it, the content would overlap with the village article. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: ? I guess... This exists [3], [4] or [5]. Simply copying the text from an 100 yr old encyclopedia is a no-no. Two of these sources are older than the Britannica, one more recent. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like the Theory of Village Communities was part of the study of the history of economics in the second half of the nineteenth century - this article by Denman Waldo Ross is an 1880 review describing various sources (not all in English, and many looking at non-European cultures, albeit from a colonial perspective). Maybe we should have an article about the theory, but it'd need to be more critical and better-sourced than the current article. Adam Sampson (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Social science, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While an article on the study of village communities may be suitable, this article on the study of village communities is not. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DEL-CONTENT importantly notes that when editing can address the reasons for deletion, we should edit the article to make it better instead of deleting it. This discussion has turned up adequate sourcing to write some article about village communities (or the economic theory thereof), and the article should of course be improved. But deletion here seems unwise. So too does draftification, as the article was uploaded here in 2006, and sending this to the draft heap as a backdoor to deletion seems ill-advised in light of relevant policies and guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure how this is a different topic than village (or, the history of villages). And none of the EB1911 content should be retained. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The prose is not encyclopedic and should be entirely rewritten if not outright scrapped. I also share the same concerns as the individual who nominated the article for deletion and agree that little if any information included here is worth retaining. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 13:46, 24 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Diablo Silverado Council

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. Secondary sources provided are either unreliable or passing mentions. spryde | talk 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America in California#Mount Diablo Silverado Council. There's a lot of content there. The article simply needs a good editor. --evrik ^(talk) 13:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability is only an essay, it saves me from having to type out my argument. Even if a target can't be decided now, a re-direct can be quickly created at any time by any editor. Graywalls (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, basically. Just no notability. This is not unlike what we see in articles on university departments--they are rarely notable in their own right, and that their existence relies on being part of a notable organization doesn't make them notable. I doubt that really any councils are notable--looking at the category and clicking randomly on one, San Diego-Imperial Council, that one is not notable. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. It's weird how some sections of the project just accumulate cruft. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Topic is not notable, as councils, even with so many references (many of which are primary), are not notable to begin with. Also, there isn't much coverage on the topic. Haruka Amaranth 09:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable.
Axad12 (talk) 18:32, 17 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego-Imperial Council

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. There is one secondary source, about a small fire in 2004, which does not make the council/camp notable--and one wonders whose bottle rockets they were. Councils/camps from the BSA or any other organization are rarely notable in their own right and this one is no expection. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct to List of councils (Boy Scouts of America). Does not meet WP:NCORP to warrant its standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Drmies.

Axad12 (talk) 18:05, 17 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homenetmen

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

This article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris; I don't know why it was undeleted. Since then (May 2020) there has been no improvement, and the article consists of unverified text/OR (which, surprisingly, spends very little time on the actual organization and fails to say much that indicates notability) and a long, long, and unencyclopedic collection of linkspam. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Sports, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Clarification is in order for the nomination statement above. Homenetmen was created in 2016 and was never deleted. The discussion from 2020 saw just 1 other editor vote on your original nom, which was in regards to a different article. It was your recommendation that Homenetmen be deleted as well, but the article was never officially deleted. Now, back to content, this is a pretty notable scouting organization with active chapters across the world. A simple google search yielded 419,000 results; WP:RS confirming WP:N is indeed there. There are several wiki articles which are integrated to this parent article like Homenetmen Beirut and Homenetmen Antelias, which makes the deletion of this parent article seem odd to me. With that being said, I do agree that a lot of work is needed to improve the article and remove 'spammy' content. With a bit of tough love, the article can be saved. Archives908 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Archives908, it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris, as the log reflects, on 31 May 2020, and undeleted "per request at WP:RFUD" (I'm copying from the deletion log) on the same day. If your simple google search delivers so many results, please show us a couple that meet RS. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with the above. This seems to pass WP:SIGCOV and should stay. Garsh (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV --jergen (talk) 18:07, 23 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!} 07:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bays Brewery

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

Found some (old) coverage independent of business but not significant and reliable coverage per WP:Notability that establishes notability worth of an article, even in stub form, in my opinion. The business is no longer operational and permanently closed and even when open was a very small local brewery in New Zealand not notable or well known to the public (lived there for 15 years). I raised a PROD recently on this article but was not aware that there had been a previous failed PROD long before oldprods were added to talk pages, hence an AfD. Whisky and more (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Companies. Whisky and more (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "established in December 1993. It is no longer in operation." and nothing much else pretty well says it all. Bduke (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Not much exposure outside of the region it originated in. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe removing this article is the best course of action. The information provided indicates the subject lacks notability. Waqar💬 17:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and no sigcov. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:51, 15 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 redirect‎ to Norwegian School of Economics. ^Complex/_Rational 18:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice Lab

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion 10 years ago but didn't really address the lack of reliable sources covering this research group (the few that were linked to just mention it in passing). Also not addressed was the fact that the entire article was a copy-and-paste of the official media release, which makes this self-promotion. In 10 years the article has gotten no content edits or inbound links, so it's still that official release word-for-word. The Choice Lab seems to have largely rebranded as something else but I still can't find any real sources actually about it. Details like who founded it and who the members are, what its funding is and who provides that funding, where it's specifically located - the core of an encyclopedia article on this topic would be - it just doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources. Combined with a decade and no real encyclopedia editing occurring on the article makes me think this just isn't an encyclopedia topic. Perhaps it should redirect to Norwegian School of Economics but I didn't want to do that unilaterally. Here2rewrite (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as proposed. I agree with your analysis. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Searches reveal little or no secondary coverage that suggest this lab is notable. Malinaccier (talk) 13:59, 19 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Redirects can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North East Rugby League Regional Division

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Page is a mess - Redirect to North East Rugby League Premier Division and rename North East Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 18 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. Sandstein 18:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TriTech Software Systems

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing I found other than brief entries on sites that list companies is this, and it is about how this company/software using a separate bit of software for customer service. It does include some info about the company but I don't think it meets NCORP. As mentioned on the talk page, most of the sources in the article have gone 404. I'll check back to see if anyone finds good sources. Lamona (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that this source from the article is still live and is not bad, but still probably not near NCORP. Lamona (talk) 01:57, 16 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. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow & District League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local amateur league. Fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Delete. Mn1548 (talk) 16:28, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Discussion about a better title can proceed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 22:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:03, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Delete. Mn1548 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would suggest that the nominator strike through the "Delete" in their update to keep from giving the impression it is a fresh !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This league is now known as the "Iggesund Cumberland ARL". Article needs improving, but there appears to be quite a bit of coverage available on TotalRL and various Cumbrian news websites [6] [7] [8]. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following suggested redirects to this page and the given sources above: Keep and rename to "Cumbria Rugby League" per RFL website. Mn1548 (talk) 14:11, 19 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 redirect‎ to Cumberland League. Owen× ☎ 22:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbria Men's League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep if sources can be found. Mn1548 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cumberland League. This league was fairly short lived and appears to no longer exist. [9] J Mo 101 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the Cumberland League is the league refered to as "Cumbria Rugby League" on the RFL website and not this one? Mn1548 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the top division of by the looks of it [10]. Mn1548 (talk) 14:09, 19 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. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North West Counties

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Delete. Mn1548 (talk) 16:28, 18 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 keep‎. Closing because there has been no discussion but the nominator now says to keep. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North West Men's League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep. Mn1548 (talk) 16:30, 18 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 redirect‎ to Yorkshire Men's League. Owen× ☎ 22:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CMS Yorkshire league

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:19, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League, which is effectively the successor competition to this league. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yorkshire Men's League appers to be the successor of the RLC Yorkshire Premier from what is written on the pages. Mn1548 (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - ~~Delete~~. Mn1548 (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:47, 18 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. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hull & District League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Open age league doesn't appear to exist anymore; only youth teams. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep only if sources can be found. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:48, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North East Rugby League Premier Division

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep and merge useful info from North East Rugby League Regional Division and rename North East Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:38, 18 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 keep‎. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pennine League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is historically important as it was one of the largest amateur leagues in the country during its heyday, and is one of the last surviving traditional winter leagues. There are lots of sources at the British Newspaper Archive which could be used to improve the article. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Source are available, this league seems to run somewhat independently - Open to keep. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Men's League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the stronger, more notable regional leagues, and a couple of its clubs have recently made (ambitious) applications to join the professional ranks ([11], [12]). TNT is meant as a last resort and I don't think it should apply here. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep. Mn1548 (talk) 16:31, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Owen× ☎ 20:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Rugby League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep. Mn1548 (talk) 16:42, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

London Mens League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that this should be deleted as it is up to date with the current London Men’s League. There are other pages that should be deleted first such as London and South East men’s league or merit leagues. You are right that the Wikipedia pages for amateur Rugby League does need updating though. Camogray (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone AfDed all the merit leagues a while back and have all been redirect to Rugby League Conference. I have also AfDed "London and South East men’s league" with this one. While this is one of the very few that is upto date and in context with the wider system, it still needs references to comply with WP:GNG. Mn1548 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Closest league on RFL website to the description is "London and South East Rugby League". Perhaps a merge and redirect with London Men's League is an option as that page looks to cover to similar material. The RFL page currently calls this "London and South East Rugby League". Mn1548 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep merge with South East Men's League and rename London and South East Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:42, 18 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 Midlands Rugby League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Junior League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Non notable junior competition - ~~Delete~~. Mn1548 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a contested PROD, this does not qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 18 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!} 23:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Midlands Rugby League Premier Division, as was done for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midlands Rugby League Division One. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh90210, that is not an appropriate target article as it is a Redirect. It should be appearing with a green font color. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page was merged to Midlands Rugby League a few hours after my comment; presumably that would be the merge target now. That is, "selective" merge; other than that the league exists (and some senior teams have junior teams in the league) there is no content to merge. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:00, 30 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Premier Division

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep and rename Midlands Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:44, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South East Men's League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Closest league on RFL website to the description is "London and South East Rugby League". Perhaps a merge and redirect with London Men's League is an option as that page looks to cover to similar material. Mn1548 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep merge with London Men's League and rename London and South East Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:42, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South West Rugby League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep if sources can be found. Mn1548 (talk) 16:43, 18 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 Midlands Rugby League Premier Division. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Division One

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:53, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable competition. Fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Merge and Redirect to Midlands Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:49, 18 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 Midlands Rugby League Premier Division. Owen× ☎ 22:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Division Two

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable competition. Fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Merge and Redirect to Midlands Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:49, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference North West Division

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rugby League Conference North West Division

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired this nomination so that it is not an outright duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugby League Conference North West Premier. (As best I can tell the nominator is legitimately nominating both articles for deletion with the same rationale, it is just that this nomination was not pointing to the correct article at all.) No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Merge and Redirect to North West Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 (talk) 16:52, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference North West Premier

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Redirect to North West Men's League. Mn1548 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Merge and Redirect to North West Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 (talk) 16:52, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference Welsh Championship

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After a little bit of further research, this used to be the RLC Welsh Regional. Still can't find anything more than a passing mention so maybe a redirect to a subsection of South Wales Men's League could be a better alternative. Mn1548 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Merge and Redirect to South Wales Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 (talk) 16:53, 18 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 keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference Yorkshire Premier

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 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 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League. Mn1548 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Merge and Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 (talk) 16:52, 18 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 keep‎. The eligibility of an article does not depend on its title. If the topic would meet our inclusion criteria under some title but not its current one, then it should be moved, not deleted. After discounting !votes based solely on the impropriety of the title, we're left with a clear consensus to keep. Any editor is welcome to move the page to a better title. Owen× ☎ 13:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto national football team

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

This isn't a "national football team". In an attempt to propose a move target, I determined that it should be deleted rather than renamed.

For the first match: some attendees at the 99º Universal Esperanto Congress had a friendly game of football during the event. [13]

The rest appears to be cosplay. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does seem to pass GNG... SportingFlyer T·C 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Not a nation. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I created it as Esperanto football team since it is not a country but someone decided to move it to Esperanto national football team, I found [14], [15], [16],[17], [18], [19], [20], among many more sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources don't support that it is a "national football team" or a "football team" in any organized sense. It is a few one-off matches held by amateurs at various Universal Esperanto Congress events, and a few big-talkers making claims about pursuing non-FIFA recognition that are, in a word, bullshit. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true... it literally played in two non-FIFA organization tournaments (COSANFF Cup and Zamenhof Cup) among other games against teams in non-FIFA organizations (Mapuche etc), and on top of that it does meet WP:GNG by any means. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in a non-FIFA tournament is not the claim to fame you think it is... Giant Snowman 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GNG is the claim to notability we think it is, and I don't know how you could argue against the articles here which were published in clearly reliable sources. SportingFlyer T·C 09:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, Thanls, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to World Esperanto Congress or Universal Esperanto Association. The subject is notable given the multiple reliable sources talking about it, but there's not much long-term coverage and not an enormous amount that needs to be said about it, so it fits better in context with other things the same people have been doing. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third option could be Esperanto, maybe in the Culture section Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also like to say that if it does not get merged or deleted, it should be moved to "Esperanto (football team)". I would move it, but this is during an AFD. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article has been shown to meet GNG which no editor has refuted so should be kept. Thanks , Das osmnezz (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article show that this clearly meets the GNG. I think it should be moved to "Esperanto football team" – some sources call it a national team, but one of those also then goes on to say "Es un equipo que no juega por una Nación o por un club". Common sense says it's not a national team. Toadspike [Talk] 19:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to a selective merge to World Esperanto Congress as suggested by Mrfoogles. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:06, 25 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!} 23:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep only if the name is changed to "...football team" rather than "...national football team—It feels absurd to vote in favor of something this fluid, semi-official, and undefinable. We can't even figure out what to call it, much less exactly what it is. This is clearly not a national team, because Esperanto is a language, not a nation. It's also not a sub-nationality, ethnic identity, tribal affiliation, or diasporic community. I want to vote "Delete" so badly, but the sources are there to establish WP:SIGCOV, unfortunately. That said, this is a ridiculous article on a ridiculous subject that shouldn't really exist. But standards are standards, and this article meets those standards. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article has been shown to meet GNG which no editor has refuted so should be kept. As it stands, there are one delete vote, one merge vote, and four keep votes. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:35, 30 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. Sandstein 19:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South American Board of New Football Federations

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

This article borders on a WP:HOAX. It is not a notable organization, just a very self-important one. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's not a HOAX because I've heard about the project outside of Wikipedia, the point is that it's an embryonic entity with no relevance and that it hasn't managed to hold any competition. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 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 no consensus‎. I'm closing this as No consensus as the Keeps are Weak Keeps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Unity Football Alliance

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

An "international football" organization article that is a WP:HOAX in its current form. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on GNG, but this is very clearly not a hoax. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As but one example: there is a "Karen" team listed under Asia, but it is a local group in Minnesota. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You are likely unaware that the Karen are an ethnic group from Myanmar who have a diaspora in Minneapolis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The Karen Football Association, which you can find can find plenty of details about through internet searches are a Karen diaspora group based in Minneapolis. Sherms95 (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Kashmir team is a local club in Bradford. The organization (and the article) pretense to be "national teams for sub-national entities", but it isn't; it's a few random local clubs with ethnic ties that signed up for a press release with this group. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It may not be HOAX, but it didn't even organize any competition to be relevant. Svartner (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2024

That's not true - the BBC even lists Chagos as the winner of one of their competitions: [21] SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most of the coverage isn't independent, but there's some coverage, including from Bradford, [22], BBC mentions, the Non-League Football Paper, and the nomination was based on a mis-understanding. SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They basically do not organize any relevant competitions, a single mention does not prevent failure in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 18 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!} 23:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. This is clearly not a hoax, and SportingFlyer makes a good point. It's weak, admittedly, but it's a keep for me right now. Anwegmann (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a hoax, because it conflates "national team" with "expat team", and relies on puffery from primary sources to the degree that it makes claims that are demonstrably false. Some actual organization may exist; but it is entirely "we let people put out press releases that pretense to importance which we do not have". Walsh90210 (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, a hoax is generally something that's completely fictional, whereas this is an actual organisation similar to ConIFA. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There is some coverage of this alliance, [23], [24], talk about it but are not the primary subject of the article. Forbes article directly about the group [25]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the only hoax that I can see here, is this nomination. Was there a BEFORE? There's references - and here's another one. Nfitz (talk) 16:57, 9 July 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. Malinaccier (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist International

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite attempts at improvement this article simply lacks any ability to establish its subject via sustained reporting via reliable, third party sources. All of the third-party RS that are currently on the article are simply in the History section and instead relate to the historical organisation Militant.

This means every source actually covering the RCI/IMT have been published by the group itself or relying on other primary sources written by its sections or former sections.

As a result, this article very much fails to demonstrate the meeting of GNG and should therefore be removed from main space, preferably with the contents being moved to draft in the hopes it'll be expanded in the future and the main space being redirected to Socialist Appeal (the only RS-compliant element of the RCI/IMT that exists on the English Wikipedia). Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, IMT has been a notable organization for long period. It had parliamentary representation in Pakistan for a while. --Soman (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article could possibly do with improvement, I think this is a significant grouping. PatGallacher (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm not a fan of the IMT/RCI, they are likely the largest Trotskyist international in the world at present so I think we'd be remiss to delete the article. It's one thing to monitor the article and make sure it avoids being promotional or self-laudatory but there is merit in having a neutral article. Also, one should be aware that counting attempts to delete the article under its former name, this is the fourth AFD in 12 years. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no shortage of obscure Trotskyist internationals that probably deserve to have their articles deleted, but this isn't one of them. IMT gets 168 results on Google Scholar,[26] which is clearly enough to show that it has received significant coverage. Don't get me wrong, this article has big problems with an excessive reliance on non-independent sources, but that's an argument for a rewrite, not deletion. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are an uncountable number of minor Trotskyist parties that do not deserve a spot on Wikipeida, the IMT/RCI is not one of them. The article currently has more than the required amount of verifiable sources, and as Grnrchst notes it has significant coverage. While there is room for improvement the article should not be deleted in its entirety. Additionally there have not been any significant changed in the article since the previous Deletion Nomination about three months ago, which was ruled a keep due to existing sources, potential new material, and material which had been removed by the previous nominator. CitrusHemlock 02:15, 18 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!} 05:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Four Uganda

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. The sources were solely based or more about the founders arrest. Hence if this is going to be beneficial, I would consider redirecting to Nicholas Opiyo. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and Uganda. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 18 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!} 06:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I want this to be notable. However it does not seem to me to have a valid claim to notability, and the references, or lack of useful references, confirm this. Most are about the founder and his arrest, Others are snippets actually about C4U, but are not independent dent, not significant coverage 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 30 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD Cricket League

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC/WP:OFFCRIC. Non-notable tournament which ran twice, over 15 years ago. No WP:LASTING. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE. AA (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and New York. AA (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3,4 and 6 are perfectly acceptable, with coverage at home and in Australia. Notability is not temporary, but the article does need updating. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one looks to pass WP:GNG with sourcing in the article and more being found in a simple search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article seems to pass WP:GNG and has adequate sourcing. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 01:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some sources are weak, but the article passes WP:GNG. Waqar💬 17:19, 13 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!} 04:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E@I

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

Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this educational conference, only things hitting on Euler's complex numbers. Sourcing used appears primary. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, Technology, Internet, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization is well known in Esperanto-speaking circles, and I would expect most sources to be in that language. This search found a number of articles in news org sources that discuss the organization: [27] (takes a moment to load the results). I think they're enough to demonstrate notability. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 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!} 21:23, 17 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!} 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not finding significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Tagged "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources" since March 2017. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the numerous Esperanto-language sources from the search results I linked above? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could pull out a WP:THREE from those search results. -- asilvering (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any major news articles or independent reviews about this. The information seems to come from the conference organizers themselves, and it's been flagged for a while for needing more reliable sources. Waqar💬 17:30, 3 July 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 Football at the Micronesian Games. Malinaccier (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yap football team

AfDs for this article:

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

OK, the relevant Afd was in 2011. Let's ask some questions.

Question 1: Notability policies and guidelines have changed since then, haven't they?
Question 2: has this particular Association Football team may have gathered some WP:SIGCOV since 2011?

My answers are to these questions

Answer 1: Yes, they have changed, and are adverse to the retention of this article. this would appear to me strongly supportive of a "delete" outcome here
Answer 2: Nope, not as far as I can see

Despite or possibly because Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP I'm fine with any alternate outcome Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the participation in Football at the Micronesian Games is not sufficient for an article on its own; and there is nothing else to base an article on. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral regarding whether to retain this title as a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Football at the Micronesian Games. Everything one could want to know about the team is located there. Very far from notability. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly there's nothing really wrong with this article apart from the fact it's for a very dusty far away area of the football world where the team isn't consistently active and where most news gets posted on Facebook instead in newspapers. I think deleting this makes our encyclopaedia worse as it's correct and reliably sourced, but I can't make a good solid argument to keep this, nor is any coverage from the tournament they participated readily available online which could rebut the #2 argument for deletion. So IAR keep from me, which will be discarded, but still, I object. I am sure the competitions they participated in received at least some coverage somewhere, though, similar to the 2023 futsal tournament which was meant to create interest in the sport. SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Football at the Micronesian Games per above. Possibly a section like "participating teams" could be made on that page, containing a small summary of each team participating? Just a suggestion VojvodaStranih (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the Micronesian Games: As a WP:ATD. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 09:59, 13 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Arena Football

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

Very minimal significant coverage from reliable sources; majority of sources are from a suspected fan site. Could not find recent coverage in a WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 15:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There's only one link to a Facebook page, the others are to a local newspaper while the others are to a very reliable site, which is in use for most minor league articles. This league is equivalent to the National League (division) in England (without the history). There's absolutely no reason to delete this article. Ccui123 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ccui123 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Oppose I don't see any reason for deletion. This is a pro league, and the article is well sited. StanleyKey (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see here is I don't see any other source besides OurSportsCentral, Muskegon Sports, and local team sources. I'm expecting more than just those sources here. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Michigan, and Ohio. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 15:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's clearly a minor league and Our Sports Central is as good of a source you can get for leagues below the Major level. BabyBOY789 (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there's Muskegon Sports for West Michigan Ironmen coverage, but what about coverage for the other teams? Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 21:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The league is not notable at all and there is no news articles on it except for small town news. Blake675 (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - other than the articles from "Muskegon Sports" there isn't anything else produced here or in the article to pass GNG. The Muskegon Sports articles are more relevant for the West Michigan Ironmen than this league anyway. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Muskegon Sports articles are the only ones which could be considered to meet the WP:GNG and they mostly focus on only 1 team. Delete for a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with West Michigan Ironmen since the league is inextricably tied to that team and what reliable sources are available for it are in the context of that team. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 23 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!} 21:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhubaneswar Club

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

On its face, it fails WP:NORG. Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization is not notable enough to justify a separate page. Poor sources with no evidence that organization has attracted any notice. The org received no or very little notice from independent sources. Page fails WP:NORG. RangersRus (talk) 16:15, 16 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!} 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Förbundet Arbetarfront

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE shows no results in modern Swedish media archives or on Google Scholar/Books. 7 newspaper entries on https://tidningar.kb.se/ which I can't access in full but the text that is visible suggests mostly trivial mentions of arranging meetings and similar. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mild delete: Right, all mention on the Tidningar website OP has linked is from 1943 and they mostly say Förbundet Arbetarfront is the arranging entity as far as I can understand. Unless more notability can be shown, I do not think English Wikipedia needs a whole article about this, though maybe it might be added to some Sweden-related WWII articles? -Konanen (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from some more editors about this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 15 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!} 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zambia Institute of Chartered Accountants

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I also found no coverage. Given the lede of the article, you'd think some references exist somewhere. I'm not opposed to recreating the article if someone can find them. For now though, I think bringing this article up to notability standards is unlikely. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing seems insufficient for a Wikipedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:10, 14 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. Owen× ☎ 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philmont Leadership Challenge

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

WP:GNG, WP:NOTGUIDE WP:ADVERT. This is more of a flyer than encyclopedic article and it's evident by contents like "During 2012, the program fee was $470 if paid before January 2012, or $495 after January 1. This fee includes all meals and lodging, training materials, and a course patch. " Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Products, and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify Content is useful but should be updated. --evrik ^(talk) 22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks for you opinion, but please name three independendent reliable sources with significant depth of coverage specifically on this topic to indicate this warrants a stand-alone article. Factual verifiability is not equivalent to notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Evrik, I don't know what you mean with "wikify". Drmies (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I was wondering that too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be merged into Philmont Scout Ranch, but the material does need to be cut back and generally improved. Bduke (talk)
- I think it was "forked" out of that article in the first place. --evrik ^(talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is purely organizational material, lacking any secondary sourcing--nor should we expect any. I wouldn't call this article an ad, but the effect of this plethora of organizational articles, in-universe articles as it were without any secondary sourcing, is a walled garden for such articles to lean on each other, and that certainly has promotional effects. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing on the page is not independent. A search online didn't find anything in-depth that could satisfy WP:GNG. Would recommend a redirect to Boy Scouts of America as an WP:ATD.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable encyclopaedic subject. I believe this one is covered by WP:NORG. There is no sourcing per WP:SIRS demonstrating notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 13 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 New Democracy (Greece) as an ATD where it can be improved and, if needed, spun back out once independent notability has been established Star Mississippi 16:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement

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

Merge to New Democracy (Greece). On its own it fails WP:NORG, as the student wing of New Democracy it adds value to that article. Disputed draftification 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greece. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author note:

I will try to find some time to expand the article over the following days. For the time being, I would just like to mention that there has been a seperate article about it in the Greek wikipedia for years: https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%91%CE%BD%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A0%CF%81%CF%89%CF%84%CE%BF%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1_-_%CE%9D%CE%AD%CE%B1_%CE%94%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%BF%CE%BA%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%A6%CE%BF%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE_%CE%9A%CE%AF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%83%CE%B7 .

As a new wikipedia member, I am not very familiar with criteria and processes. However, since there is a seperate page for it in the Greek wikipedia (it has not been merged with the New Democracy party greek page), I think that there should also be a seperate equivalent page in the English wikipedia. In my opinion, expanding the article is the way to go, not merging it.

(So I would vote for KEEP, while expanding it at the same time.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ArchidamusIII I would have moved it to Draft, but see WP:DRAFTIFY which says I cannot. I do not feel that drafification is appropriate, or would have suggested it. The Greek language Wikipedia has different standards. The English language version has the most stringent. Existence of an article in one is no guarantee that is suitable for the other or another, not is any precedent set between language versions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for the information!

I just added 15 cases-events that attracted media attention (in table form). By media I mean media that are reputable in Greece. In all honesty, I think that Democratic Renewal Initiative – New Democracy Student Movement should definitely meet the notability criteria. A quick google search with δαπ νδφκ as keywords (its Greek abbreviation) yields numerous results.

I will try to expand the article more over the following days. There is a lot of material available, so it is hard for me to cover everything. My original goal was to establish a short article and then let others slowly add details.

ArchidamusIII (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per nominator.

TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national student wing of one of main parties in Greece, had major role in national student body elections (which is a very important event in Greek politics). Whilst the article might need some editing, its not a candidate for Draftify. --Soman (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:33, 14 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!} 21:48, 21 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. I'd normally accept Redirect as a sensible ATD in such cases, but the fact that the copyright violating text existed from the very first version of the page, and the limited amount of editing done since, makes Redirect over a selective delrev a poor choice in this case. Any editor is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect, although I don't see much value in that. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Products, and Education. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough content to stand on its own. For anyone who is keeping score, look here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Article_watch. Graywalls likes Afding, and hacking at articles, but doesn't help improve them. --evrik ^(talk) 02:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just got this bon mot on civility on my talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 02:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would appreciate if you keep the discussion contained to contents. Given the lack of sources that would allow this article to meet NCORP for the program itself and such heavy reliance on primary source, I don't believe it merits a stand-alone and per WP:BRD, I re-directed it, boldly, which you reverted and I believe that AfD is the proper venue to discussion such. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think that the article can be improved, however it should be noted that this is your modus operandi. --evrik ^(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has considerable amount of detailed content to distinguish it from Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and sources seem decent, could use some additional sources for verifiability but nothing to warrant deletion over. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to sustain the article on company/products/org, they have to meet WP:SIRS. Do you believe adequate secondary sources fully independent of BSA exists to cover specifically on "Introduction to Leadership Skills"? When questions about notability arise, the the decision should be based on significant, intellectually independent sources. Essentially all of the contents are based on BSA affiliated sources, so it instantly fails "independent, secondary" test. Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect. This would make a lot more sense as a subsection in the Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sourcing that proves notability for this by our standards, because it's such a programmatic, "internal" topic, appropriate for the organization's website but not for an encyclopedia. ADifferentMan, the problem here is not "verifiability", it's notability. The sources are all primary. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Wikify Covers two major programs that 100,000's or millions have been through. A good "sub-article" of Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and these types commonly exist without the unusually strict (in that context) bar being promulgated by the duo. Whether we get that by just following the norm or by bringing in a bit of IAR, IMO that would be a good way to cover this. BTW a pair of folks have been intensely working at deleting BSA articles and BSA article content and that duo is here in this AFD. Article needs wikifying and a bit of paring to be more oriented towards informing a typical (non-BSA) reader. I'd be happy to work on that if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:North8000, I read over your comment twice but I see no policy-based reasons for keeping this. "Millions have been through it" isn't one, and I don't know what "good sub-article" means or why that means we should keep it. IAR is not an excuse to have all this material in our encyclopedia. I suppose you mean me as part of that duo? Well that's sweet. Can we please get any reliable secondary sourcing? Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that's what we need. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the ping would need to be on or after June 17th. Soon I'll be gone until then. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please name three sources suggesting WP:SOURCESEXIST to support WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG to sustain this as stand-alone article. I am advocating for re-direct to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) Graywalls (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your post completely ignores my argument and so is not a response to my post. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument essentially says "I like this stuff and I find it valuable and should be retained" and not grounded in guidelines supported by the wider community and IAR shouldn't liberally invoke to try to retain "I like it and its informative" article that isn't supportable in ordinary guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a completely invented insulting mis-statement of my argument, so far off that it bears no relationship to my argument. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, now Graywalls has posted this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philmont Leadership Challenge and is starting to attack Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America). Just saying. BTW, this appears to be an continuation of the discussion held: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#User:Graywalls_reported_by_User:72.83.72.31 --evrik ^(talk) 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody came forward for filing that drive-by report and I see Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31 has no other edits. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:evrik, can you explain what you mean with "attack" and how that jibes with [{WP:AGF]]? Drmies (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made my recommendation, gave the basis for it and made my offer. Now I've seen two people misstate what I said. Including misstating that my mention of IAR was explicitly only to follow a common and useful-for-Wikipedia norm which is not explicitly supported by policy. Even if I wasn't going to be gone until June 17th I'd be stepping away from this now,content to go with whatever is decided and leaving my offer open to Wikify if it is kept and if pinged. I'm extending that offer to include doing a careful merge if that is decided and if pinged. In the larger picture the duo has had some valid points that could point toward some refining of BSA articles but unfortunately, I've seen what IMO appears be a hostile view towards the BSA articles, a pretty heavy targeting of them, and where their only activity on them has been towards large scale deletion of material and deletion of articles with no activity towards improving them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The discussion here seems contentious when all that needs to happen is review the references to determine if the topic is notable. Unfortunately, I cannot find any in-depth coverage to show how it meets WP:GNG, nor do I see any references pointed out above that would qualify. If someone is able to provide the sourcing they feel shows notability, I would be happy to review and even change my !vote. Would recommend a redirect to Boy Scouts of America if page is ultimately deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) per nom. This does not meet WP:NORG. In particular this is a non notable product of a notable organisation. WP:NPRODUCT is the relevant guideline. There should be sustained coverage per WP:SIRS. That coverage does not exist. Rather than deleting the page, a redirect to the training page is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIRS coverage, and a redirect that preserves the history would also preserve copyvio like the paragraph beginning ILSC helps crew members with leadership positions..., copied from this Word doc. And that's just from comparing the current text to the sources it cites; I'm guessing there's more copyvio in the history and/or non-cited sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:54, 14 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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 10:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Falah Party

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

I don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the required to win an election to get listed on wikipedia, secondly as for the WP:GNG is concerned, this party is got some coverage from reliable independant sources. e.g:

https://www.urdupoint.com/politics/party/pakistan-falah-party-84.html

https://www.dawn.com/news/676942/another-political-party-is-born

https://pakvoter.org/political_parties/pakistan-falah-party/ Subhanyusha (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC) — Subhanyusha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Subhanyusha, Unreliable sources except Dawn, and no sig/in-depth coverage in Dawn news story. — Saqib (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This party meets most of the criteria to be on Wikipedia Namat ullah samore (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — Namat ullah samore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, coverage in articles dedicated solely to PFP encountered in multiple media outlets, Daily Pakistan, Jang, Jang, Mustafai News, Abna, Dunya, Daily Pakistan, etc., --Soman (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soman, But the references/coverage provided fall short of establishing WP:N according to GNG, because the provided coverage is either consist of WP:ROTM or news articles derived from press releases issued by PFP. However, for GNG, coverage needs to be sig. and in-depth, and from RS. Moreover, some of the sources cited, such as Daily Pakistan, Mustafai News, and Abna, aren't even considered RS. For instance, an interview with a PR agency owner suggests that Daily Pakistan accepts press releases as part of their content strategy. In-fact Daily Pakistan also disclosed that they accept submissions and even news articles. While these references may be used to WP:V but they do not meet the high threshold required for WP:N under GNG. — Saqib (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The problem here is, if you discard virtually all Pakistani media outlets as unreliable then you'll open the way to mass deletions to remove general coverage of the country, and as such reinforce systematic bias. I find it non-constructive to push for deletions on technicalities whilst ignoring that such deletions make no improvement to Wikipedia as encyclopedia. The PFP appears sufficiently notable to warrant an article. --Soman (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Soman, I'm surprised by your assumption that I'm labelling all Pakistani sources as unreliable. I've clearly explained above why these particular coverage is not acceptable for GNG. You're welcome to use them for WP:V, but we shouldn't relying on these questionable sources to establish GNG, where the standard for sourcing is quite high and requires strong coverage from RS. With around 200 political parties in Pakistan, virtually of all of them receive some form of WP:ROTM coverage, similar to PFP. However, this doesn't automatically means we should allow articles for each of them based solely on this questionable coverage. Instead, we should adhere to the GNG. At the very least, a party should have some representation in parliament to justify an article. — Saqib (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NORG requires stronger demonstration of source independence and more substantial SIGCOV than can be achieved with the coverage here, which mostly relies on PR and/or is not in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 15 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!} 22:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Soman has demonstrated sufficiently deep coverage of this party, I don't think those sources are generally unreliable. Whizkin (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC) — Whizkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete poor sourcing, some serious WP:UPE vibes here don't help this article's case. The keeps in this case do not provide a sufficiently strong rationale for delete beyond poor quality sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject has significant coverage on reliable sources. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK but can you provide that significant coverage that meets the GNG? It seems everyone (mostly fresh accounts) is just casting keep and saying there's significant coverage, but no one's backing up that claim in a way that meets WP:GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party has received sufficient coverage for general notability. Winning an election is not required for notability. Cortador (talk) 21:10, 28 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. Star Mississippi 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Movements of Greece

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

I have notability and original research concerns with this article.

I am unable to identify where the collective subject of the page is discussed sufficiently to meet the GNG. This part makes up the introduction of the page. In this section, the article cites to a primary research paper and a master's thesis and then a bunch of primary sources of student organization websites or interviews with organization members about upcoming elections.

Then the article moves to a list of student organizations by section. I doubt this would pass as a WP:NLIST. It variously fails to cite specific things about each student organization from primary sources. It cites at one point the view count from a YouTube video.

The final section is a timeline specific to the "Youth Communist Liberation" organization, not the subject of the page itself.

I want to be clear here, I'm not making an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument here. I'm saying that the contents of this page don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic, it's just WP:SYNTH style OR and that the purported subject of the page, i.e. the topic of Independent Student Movements of Greece, presently fails collective notability and is dressed up by the OR and does not presently meet WP:N

I was in the process of maintenance tagging the article, but combined with the NPOV concerns and the above, I don't presently believe this article is siutable for mainspace. This page has a history of being draftified. I'm not opposed to a draftify ATD. But an approved article should ensure that the contents of the article represent the subject of the article, and that it meets our WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR policies. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s explanations:

Addressing misunderstandings regarding sources:

-Sources 1-2 are indeed research.

- Source 3 is the only available database (at least as far as I am aware of) that covers all years starting from 2004.

- Sources 4-6 are not student websites, these are legitimate (and reasonably popular) Greek news sites! (See “notability part” for more details).

- Sources 8-9 shows that two very popular outlets (See “notability part”) were discussing about the video that the movement posted. Source 7 is the video itself, so that the reader can access it.

- Source 10 proves that the YouTube account that is mentioned in source 11 is indeed the official account of the New Democracy student wing, and source 11 proves that its most popular video has 52,000 views at the moment. (One has to click on “popular” to see it.)

- Source 12 shows the election results for that specific department, and it is visible that the movement was labelled as “other right wing”.

- Source 13 shows that the other independent party got media attention for getting the 1^st place in their department elections. It is a valid news website, not a student website.

- Sources 14 and 15 prove that no elections took place in 2020 and 2021.

I see a “failed verification” near source 6. That should not be the case; if someone clicks on the screenshots of that website, he/she should be able to see their agenda. It says “10+1 ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΣ”; there are a couple of screenshots there that mention everything I have included.

The timeline is not about the Youth Communist Liberation! It only uses their election database because it is the only available source! The timeline is about the independent movements, like the rest of the article.

Beginner question: Could/Should I add Facebook photos as primary sources about the movements? That should clear any doubts.

Regarding notability:

- There is 1 article from Luben.tv (~1,500,000 monthly users) and 1 article from Neopolis.gr (~760,000 monthly users) about the first movement. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luben.tv and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopolis.gr for membership evidence.]

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr and 1 from e-reportaz.gr about the second movement. These are legitimate news sites in Greece. I do not know the exact number of views they have, but other Greek Wikipedia members can confirm that these sites are legitimate.

- There was 1 article from alfavita.gr regarding the third movement. According to this source, alfavita.gr is one of the most popular news sites in Greece (https://www.e-tetradio.gr/Article/22316/ta-20-koryfaia-enhmerwtika-site-toy-ellhnikoy-internet ) But in any case, it is definitely a legitimate news site.

- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr about the fourth movement.

All of these articles were written in different years.

Apart from this, pages about other university parties already exist in Wikipedia. Like this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLOCO

With the same line of argumentation, shouldn’t the Independent Movements have a page as well? After all, their performance in the elections is consistently better than that of Bloco, their real impact is higher.

I am not claiming that this article is a super important piece of information, but still, it fills in a gap. It adds to the knowledge base. It could be useful for those who are interested in Greek university elections.

Regarding neutrality:

- I only listed these 4 specific parties because these are the only ones that have received media attention so far. (Or at least I am not aware of any others that have received media attention. Feel free to add more to the list.) I am by no means trying to promote these 4 movements in particular.

- Regarding the potentially most viewed video, I am just stating facts. The official YouTube account of the New Democracy student wing has no video with more than 52,000 views, while one of the independent parties has a video with 63,000 views. This is an objective statement, I think.

-Regarding the best result up to date (29.9%), I checked the entire database, and I was not able to find any better result. If anyone else is aware of a better result, I will be happy to be corrected.

- The database I am using is the one of the communist student wing. The only reason I am doing it is because there is no other database available though! As far as I am aware of, this is the only database with detailed results since 2004.

Regarding original research:

- The introduction relies on published research.

- The information about each one of the 4 movements comes from reliable media.

- The only “original research” I did was summing “other left”, “other right” and “other” to calculate the total percentage in the Timeline section. Everything else is documented.

These are my 2 drachmas! ( I mean… cents!) I am happy to be corrected, and I am also more than happy to hear suggestions for improvement. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article!

(PS: As the author, my opinion is to KEEP the article.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered some data about the media I mentioned:

According to this source https://www.moneyreview.gr/society/13952/kathimerines-ekdoseis-kai-neolaia-gr-mazi/, neolaia.gr had 1,000,000 monthly visitors and had published more than 110,000 articles in 2021.

According to this source, neolaia.gr has 900,000 monthly visitors and 4,500,000 page views in May 2014. https://www.advertising.gr/advertising-2/paramedia/rekor-episkepseon-gia-to-neolaia-gr-55244/

Regarding alfavita.gr, this source ranked it 5th in 2020: https://edessaikoskosmos.gr/eidisis/poia-einai-ta-megalytera-eidiseografika-site-se-episkepsimotita-stin-ellada/

I am not claiming that these sources are 100% reliable and that the numbers are 100% accurate, but we are definitely talking about serious media that have an impact in Greece. There are not student websites, these are serious nationwide media. (The same applies to Luben.tv and Neopolis.gr as explained earlier.)

ArchidamusIII (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "While relatively rare" and the fact that they gather less than 10% of the vote isn't notable here. Could put a brief mention in an article about the political process of Greece, but most of these Movements seem to come and go fairly regularly. The sourcing is simply confirming their existence at a point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 14:11, 28 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 Boston Children's Hospital#Research. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center on Media and Child Health

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. All sources are research carried out , mostly by Michael Rich, but nothing independent discussing the center. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Children's Hospital as WP:ATD. The sourcing only supports "this is listed as an affiliation on research papers", which is insufficient for a stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boston Children's Hospital#Research, where it will fit nicely. The sources do not establish notability as they just mention an affiliation of the researcher with the center. Malinaccier (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Limited independent sourcing to establish notability for a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:17, 20 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. ✗plicit 14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institut Constant de Rebecque

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2017 if ever. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 5 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!} 03:26, 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 keep‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liberales Institut

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2012 if ever. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr (㊟) 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start by ignoring the WP:ITSUNREFERENCED claim by the nom, since that's one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. This is a difficult subject to research because this report indicates that there are two organizations with the same name and similar views, which makes finding sources more challenging than usual. Also, it's Swiss, so you really need to search under four different names (German, French, Italian, and English). This is time-consuming, so it's not surprising that people might do a cursory search, find nothing, and give up.
I think it might make more sense to treat this subject like a scholarly publisher than like a business or a social club. I would particularly consider WP:NMEDIA's "frequently cited by other reliable sources" as a possibility. As for sources, this Swiss-German article looks potentially useful, and I notice that the article at the French Wikipedia cites five sources (none of which are the org's website). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the five is plainly the subject's website in the French WP. I'll do my best to look into the others. I'm open to withdrawing my nomination if it's clear to me or to a consensus that the coverage is in-depth. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 10 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!} 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked at the sources in the French article [28] is an interview with a minimal description of the institute, this is about a prize given out/details on the winner [29]. The German ones I'm unable to translate as they block access while at work, might have to review at home later... Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked on the sources that appear on the francophone wiki and they appear to be passing mention; the Wilhelm Röpke award appears in a secondary source, but itself does not appear to be a major award. But quality wise, that source may come closest to in-depth coverage as far as fr wiki goes. JFHJr (㊟) 21:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of German sources that go beyond passing mention. Will work on article. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weka keep: Probably enough for a basic article about this institute, in addition to the sources I explained above, [30] describes their work, but it's a few lines only. This book talks about them [31] Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything approaching SIRS here -- a couple sentences parroting the org's self-description in one book is not enough to count towards NORG, let alone meet it. The main de.wp news source is a report on an event/speaker that the institute helped organize at a university, its only coverage is a one-sentence description and some info relayed by its director, so it handily fails SIRS. The other de.wp source is non-independent as it was written by a disgruntled former member. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, thank you very much. A well-explained characterization of the German sources was very much needed and helpful. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 15 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!} 03:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very easy to find new sources on this one. Will get started, there's plenty of German and English-language secondary sources which are admissible as evidence of notability as per Wikipedia policy language is not a factor in whether a source can be used.Wickster12345 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are academic secondary sources where the Liberales Institut and its work have been profiled and NOT just mentioned in passing. I have included some and will continue adding. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The texts you added are a primary research paper, the findings of which are not DUE and whose only secondary coverage of LI is Outside the UK, the next oldest organization included in our analyses is Liberales Institut (LI), established in Zurich, Switzerland in 1979. A declared follower of the Austrian School of Economics,, which is far from SIGCOV; and findings from a conference co-organized by LI (not independent). Neither of these counts toward SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree on both points.

1.There is no evidence the findings from the conference co-organized by LI (which is not the publisher either) were themselves made by someone with LI affiliation him or herself. Whether there is evidence showing this author's affiliation with Liberales Institut is what matters here. There is no such evidence. One can go to and report on a conference without being a member of the organization or even supporting the organization in any concrete way. If you can provide evidence sufficiently tying LI to the author, then I take it back.

2. The secondary coverage of LI goes way beyond the line you just reproduced. The entire article can be argued to be secondary coverage because it is filled with analysis, graphs and comparisons of LI with other Euro think tanks, without explicitly invoking the name "Liberales Institut". The fact that LI is notable enough to be analyzed and scrutinized in-depth in an independent secondary source (which happens to be an academic source) means it is notable. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JoelleJay, one more thing, in dismissing the one current German-language source with the "disgruntled ex-member" (I would dispute this characterization by the way) as not independent, in my my opinion we are committing a textbook version of the mistake of "Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic.'" from Wikipedia:Independent_sources. Liberales Institut is not a company and Kohler is not gaining in any way from publishing criticism, in and of itself, outside of, maybe a sense of being right. I recall reading the essay and it never seemed like Kohler wanted to hurt LI's financial interests or existence, it seems more like he became ideologically disenchanted and explained why, which is fair game and notable coverage if one of Switzerland's main magazines picks it up. ''Wickster12345 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kohler is not independent of the institute, therefore what he says about it does not contribute to notability. It doesn't matter what type of relationship he had with it or how neutral his coverage of it is; the attention he gives to LI does not demonstrate that it is a subject of significant interest to people with zero affiliation with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of Wikipedia policy that I just quoted and explained for you: Yes the type of relationship the author of a source has with the subject matters very much because the question is about Kohler's "personal gain" by discussing the subject, which you have not, with sufficient evidence explained how has any personal skin in the game. He has no personal vested interest just by virtue of being an ex-members. If he were Head of a rival institute then, I think you may have a point. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "personal gain" is not the only reason we require sources to be completely independent of the topics they cover in order to count towards notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.

there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic worth writing and publishing non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. Even non-promotional self-published sources, like technical manuals that accompany a product, are still not evidence of notability as they are not a measure of the attention a subject has received.
Kohler is clearly affiliated, his article is therefore clearly not evidence of attention that is uninfluenced by anyone with a connection to LI. Independence is also not determined by whether some editor thinks a source would profit from covering a topic, it is established by the actual relationship an author has with the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m happy to go into why I feel the policy you reproduced in fact strengthens the argument for inclusion, but I feel it is moot with the addition of the NZZ article, please see my statement below by this is in fact an independent source. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's one, what are the others (again independent and unrelated) that provide in-depth coverage? It's not just one, it's multiple required. JFHJr (㊟) 04:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three independent in-depth secondary sources as of now (four arguably if one includes the article by Kohler). Wickster12345 (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this. you mentioned: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." The fact is Kohler, as one of the unsigned posters I believe hinted at (although I may have misunderstood their overall point), was no longer affiliated with LI at the time of writing his article. There is no temporal definition of "affiliation" with a subject per WP so we should not assume to impose a supposed 'common-sense' temporal understanding (you're de facto saying Kohler is forever affiliated just because he once was a leading member of LI) of affiliation in this case. I believe in lieu of a WP definition of how much time needs to have been elapsed for Kohler not be considered affiliated with LI we should probably assume him unaffiliated making the source count because it was published otherwise independently. That's like saying Obama commenting on a little-known policy of Trump's in an independent policy journal cannot count towards that policy having received independent, significant coverage, because Obama had the same job as Trump and was in some of the same circles. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. The sourcing on this page is passable and enough to justify it, but it should surely be improved.71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC) Checkuser blocked. Queen of Hearts ^talk 23:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem to me looks like no unrelated source or sources in combination satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH for depth or WP:GNG for significance. To get there, editors appear to rely on publications by parties that are not unrelated. A glance at the current number of sources does not make the problem quite apparent. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found another article in the major independent Swiss daily newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (a different newspaper than the source covering the ex-member Kohler's view) covering the Liberales Institut in-depth (from 2004). I used the NZZ archive tool (- Archiv (nzz.ch)). It's now cited in the article. I think at this point, at the very least, notability and independence have been established. I actually disagree with you that all the other already existing sources fail the two policies you mention, but I think that disagreement is moot now. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source is an interview with the LI's Robert Nef, it is listed here on his website's list of his publications and the full transcript is here. It is not an independent or secondary source and does not count toward NCORP/GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JoelleJay's characterization here. And I hope the closing admin takes into account the better reasoned conclusions over simply conclusory characterizations. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost expected you might go to his website (not a criticism just an observation) as opposed to accessing the NZZ archive. If you read the ORIGINAL NZZ article there is a section in the same page which gives an in-depth history of the LI. So I think you’re mistaken and selectively focusing on the part of the NZZ page that you can access through Nef’s website alone. I’m happy to send you the original if you want. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, give me a look at it. My email link should be open. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I never got a look at the alleged difference. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your email link. I'm still happy to send to you Wickster12345 (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just figured out the email link system :) . One cannot send attachments via email link I believe? Correct me if I'm wrong. The article is on the NZZ archives which you can alternately subscribe to. Wickster12345 (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the closing admin defers to the Wikipedia policy and codified notion of consensus which, so far, as I write this, is NOT clearly in favor deletion, cheers Wickster12345 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, The criteria are met, 2 good secondary sources. Subject has press attention and independent media (never heard of these Swiss (?) newspapers but are kinda independent and authoritative) coverage. I've been studying lots of deletion discussions on here and I finally got the confidence to get involved in one :)...Based on other discussions I've seen on here interviews with people affiliated with a subject doesn't disqualify the source for showing notability if the interviews are published in independent sources and are not promotional. Re the Kohler source: I dont see anywhere on Wikipedia anybody defining how long ago an affiliation has to be for a source to gain independt status so by default im gonna say lack of formal affiliation at time of publication is enough. Peace folkss 2601:640:8A02:3C40:D996:AFF9:6B1F:E0FA (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 3-4 qualifying sources, although I tendentially agree with your arguments. As a side note: I do not agree that studying deletion discussions as precedent is the best way to learn, by the way, as the dynamic of every deletion discussion is different. Wickster12345 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "institute" seems to go by a variety of different names, most notably the various German conjugations of "Liberales Institut" (liberalem, liberale, liberalen), as well as the more specific "Liberalen Institut in Zürich". I found this highly critical article [32], which is far beyond what's needed for SIGCOV. I'm certain this is the same institute: It was founded in Zurich in 1979 and has a strong "liberal" bent (btw, in Switzerland "liberal" is equivalent to "right-wing" or "conservative" in other countries).

Searching for NZZ articles in PressReader, I've found an article covering a "study" they produced that criticizes Swiss agricultural import policy and this article titled "Kein Wettbewerb beim Geld" that I can't find elsewhere online about an event they held in 2010. There are also reviews of several books they have published, e.g. [33][34][35][36], the last of which briefly comments on the institute itself. The NZZ is a liberal newspaper, but is highly reputable, so I don't think that bias should be considered disqualifying here. There are also brief mentions in SRF that two notable people are members [37][38], and PressReader shows three hits in Le Temps which I cannot view without a subscription. Toadspike [Talk] 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A search at E-newspaperarchives.ch [39] returns 101 results, some of which are advertisements or false positives, but many are clearly articles about this subject. The paywalls are a pain, though. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. GNG seems met. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG with multiple sources and multiple interwikis. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:26, 27 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!} 03:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for MetroWest

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

Fails WP:ORG. Coverage is mainly local and not wider as per WP:AUD. Only one article links to this. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Massachusetts. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage is "mainly" local, then it is "at least one non-local", which is all that AUD requires. This appears to be a community foundation, and my inclination is to merge it into MetroWest (=the geographical area it serves). We probably could find sources to demonstrate separate notability, especially since one of the already-cited sources is about "National Recognition For Rigorous Philanthropic Standards", but I think that merging it up will help people understand its purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Boston Globe article was the best thing I could find. It's less about the organization and more based on the subject of the organization's report. I think if there was more of this type of coverage, you could make an argument for the article, but all the other news coverage is routine press releases about board members and local newspapers. I am not in favor of merging as it is not clear how much information there is to enhance the target article. Would it just be one sentence about the existence of one particular charitable organization? Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 19 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. No new comments since the last relisting so, like the first AFD, I'm closing this discussion as No consensus. Let's not see this article back for a third AFD for a year, how does that sound? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine Ylang Ylang

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to have enough coverage in references, so does not pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you jump the gun and delete it which appears to be your specislisation, I suggest you give this plant the time to grow and for it to be properly documented. Thank you. Stockbroker369 (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a food, drink place LOL. This is a famous Domaine in Mauritius, close to Mahebourg. Stockbroker369 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd maybe look at CORP notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources identified by Rosguill in the last AfD seem to be enough to keep the article (I'm not listing them here, they can be seen by clicking on the prior AfD in the box at the right). That editor's analysis is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept draftification as an WP:ATD since appropriate references have not been added since the previous AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG, how about you add the sources yourself instead? Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I? Articles do not need to get sent back to the beginning just because someone didn't follow the directions perfectly. It would probably take you less time to copy and paste those sources over than has already been spent in this AFD.

There isn't actually a requirement in any policy or guideline to cite sources. Our rule is that a subject can qualify for a separate article if sources exist in the real world, even if none are cited in the article. As a long-term project, if you want to be able to delete or hide articles because they don't contain at least one source, then I suggest that you propose that. There was some effort to extended WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles earlier this year. The consensus went the other way, but perhaps if you read that discussion, you'd be able to find a path forward towards your goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no reason to change my course. Good day. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stockbroker369 This is an interesting article. It would be to your advantage if you could add a couple of more inline sources. Preferably in the first two paragraphs. Also images need to have the description on them like I just added. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is possible that this is heading toward a consensus to keep the article. Please comment on the sources raised in the previous AFD and whether the subject meets the general notability guidelines or WP:NCORP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:54, 19 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 Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of the Covenant Monastery

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Iraq, and California. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries. I found nothing in NewspaperArchive.com via WP:TWL, and the local newspaper for El Cajon, California doesn't have anything obvious online (though I doubt that they have older papers online). Searching is difficult because the literal translation of the much larger organization, B'nai B'rith, is the same as the name of this monastery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 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 redirect‎ to Habonim Dror. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Amal

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror, merging what's encyclopedic. Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for an otherwise non-notable summer camp. Both sources provided are WP:SPS and do not support WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect - Agree here also MaskedSinger (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:16, 10 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!} 05:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficiently covered in reliable sources Whizkin (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 24 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. ✗plicit 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Polo & Equestrian Club

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

Non notable article about an organization/club that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't talk of WP:NCORP when there is no notability and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Asia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom. Doesn't satisfying {WP:GNG]]. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:28, 10 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!} 22:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasads Multiplex

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

Borderline G11, no indication of notability or significance for this IMAX theater, Sourcing isn't of WP:ORG level depth Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and India. Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Independent coverage in rather reliable sources, significant and in depth, about this multiplex, and backing the claim that it houses the biggest screen in India! (other sources claim it is one of the world's largest 3D IMax). So, yes, there are various indications of significance and notability and it seems to meet WP:GNG. A redirect to Culture_of_Hyderabad#Film is imv absolutely warranted anyway. Opposed to deletion. (G11? "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So basically, borderline G11 is not G11, if it was just that the tone and content may have been partially promotional, Afds are not for cleanup and given existing coverage, this potential issue was easily fixed; added 2 refs and trimmed the page but this can evidently be improved and expanded, thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 1 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!} 23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Before closing this as no consensus, I'd like to try one more relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:ORG applies to a building, I did remove some of the promotional stuff but it does appear this meets notability due to the sustained coverage of it. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:55, 15 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. ✗plicit 04:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh

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

TOO Soon; lacks reliable sources; BoraVoro (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although The Business Standard and The Register are generally reliable as news organizations, both their articles are based entirely on the third source, Group-IB. The notes about sources in WP:GNG say, "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." The article effectively has a single source. And it isn't clear that Group-IB has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:45, 28 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!} 07:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:29, 10 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 keep‎. Sources have been provided. The nomination needed explanation and specificity. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

360 Communities

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Minnesota. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 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!} 04:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NORG MaskedSinger (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article certainly needs more references to secondary sources, a quick google search shows notable coverage: CBS News Patch.com Pioneer Press Star Tribune - Manyyassin (talk) 05:59, 7 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!} 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on sources posted by Manyyassin. They're on the edge of being WP:ROTM coverage of funding announcements, but I think there's enough coverage of the downstream importance of the organization to hit GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 22:00, 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. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bago University Students' Union

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

I have performed WP:BEFORE and searched for in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. However, I found only these:

These sources are just passing mentions. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The majority of sources that are cited are about the protest and arrest, where other people and this union's members were arrested. Does this establish notability? Please ping me if you find any in-depth coverage of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 25 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!} 07:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 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!} 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The student union has played in Burmese politics. Here is some coverage in Burmese that I found:[40], [41], [42]. 1.47.153.186 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not provide significant coverage to meet notability as per WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 19:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing anything approaching GNG here. I'm not comfortable calling any of the applied, presented or found reliable sources directly detailing this WP:ORG. I agree largely with source analysis by the nominator. There are bare mentions in RS. I'm handicapped by my not speaking the language, but my reasonable search finds nothing detailing this student organization. I'd be happy to find RS but I'm not seeing it in English. BusterD (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now in the past 10 years, along with the political transition, almost all universities in Myanmar have started to form student unions. It is undeniable that student unions play key role in Myanmar’s democratization, and there are significant full coverages in mass media (e.g. BBC Burmese). However, a single student union of a university which has only a few sources would not satisfy WP:GNG.
In fact, there is an organization that combines (almost) all the student unions in the country under the name of "All Burma Federation Of Student Unions" (following the step of the union of the same name in history). Once there is an article about the new All Burma Federation of Student Unions, this article should be redirected to there. Unfortunately, since there is no currently then it should be deleted for now. I’m not sure if it’s okay to draftify…Htanaungg (talk) 10:30, 22 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.

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

Organizations deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories