Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hatchens (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 22 May 2022 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leadhome.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs.
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.

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 delete. ✗plicit 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leadhome

Leadhome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:RS. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2022 (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 11:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fragrance and Flavours Association of India

Fragrance and Flavours Association of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack neutrality as per WP:NPOV. Also, lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2022 (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 11:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G Fashion

G Fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack WP:SIGCOV, WP:RSP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible WP:UPE. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2022 (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. Despite improvements, I don't see an agreement that the article should be kept. ClaudineChionh if you want the article moved to user / draft space for further work, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans Online

Anglicans Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of a previously expired/deleted PRODded article. New version was created by a serial unreferenced article creator who doesn't respond to talk page messages. My prod was something like: Serves as a directory listing for a directory. I'm not seeing reliable secondary significant coverage elsewhere; brief mentions on Google Scholar and elsewhere. Further details: I prodded this one w/o realizing that it had been prodded/deleted previously. I don't recall whether I prodded the previous one (I suspect not) and I don't know whether the creator of this unsourced article created the previous one. I completed a BEFORE but didn't find anything in the significant-secondary-reliable happy place. The person who deprodded this time did it on the technicality of its having been recreated; that person noted that notability is not demonstrated; someone else removed all unsourced content. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Websites. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or draftify) – AO is now "retired" but it is historically significant as the first major online news/commentary resource for the Anglican Communion. I didn't realise it didn't have a decent Wikipedia article and I'm willing to make a start on one. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article as it is now is still not close to a keep for me (notability not yet demonstrated; "first major online news/commentary resource" of various religious denominations and other groups doesn't suggest Wikipedia notability; most sources just point to Anglicans Online), but I wouldn't object to a draftification if you think you can improve it or to a redirect if you can think of a better place to cover this website/directory. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The current nominator actually was the editor who prodded the earlier version; both were created by the same editor. The older one only had the organisation's website as source. The current article has been stubbed as unreferenced, so interested parties are referred to the longer version in the history. I didn't see notability but I'm always willing to be persuaded. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ClaudineChionh, that's much improved. I've been thinking this one over. The main thing that speaks to potential notability seems to be the foundation in 1994, when as I recall the nonacademic web was in its infancy, search engines were very spotty, and websites consisting solely lists of links like this one were a major way of navigating. The earliest non-university-based website of which I'm aware also dates to 1994. I don't know how many of the early ones are still live. Is there much published on the history of Christian-focused websites, or similar? I don't even know if there were earlier Christian newsgroups/bulletin boards/mailing lists. I do recall my university Christian Union tried to start an online Bible -- I learned to type by typing in Matthew -- but got made to take it down over copyright. That would have been significantly earlier than 1994, probably 1990 or 1991, back in the days when even from a UK university you could only send e-mail to the States overnight. I think what's needed is sources, and preferably not all from the Anglican Journal. There's a brief description in the New Statesman (Andrew Brown. "The Church ignorant INTERNET." New Statesman, 128, no. 4464, 29 Nov. 1999, p. 75) and a mention in The Times ("Online devotion: the church's growing faith in the web." Times, 24 Feb. 1999, p. 11), oh, and another excellent one in The Times that I'd missed (Ruth Gledhill. Debate over rise of Synod liberals rages on Internet. Saturday, Oct. 28, 1995 The Times 65410 p10). Espresso Addict (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info, Espresso Addict. I've tried to make the creator's articles sink or swim for a few years now; maybe I should have suspected that they recreated an expired prod (and that it was one of my prods) when I saw a familiar article title, but to my knowledge they've never done that before, so I thought I was mistaken. Now we know. ~~~~DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few more solid academic as well as news references in my brief literature search on the weekend but haven't been able to read them yet (I was preoccupied with an election). I doubt I'll be able to get to them before Thursday. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. As it is right now, I'm not seeing where it meets the criteria at WP:WEBCRIT. So far, other than the obituary of one of the people involved (fine to include, but it doesn't help notability), we've got 2 citations from Anglican Journal. One of them is only a page and I'm guessing that one doesn't cover the subject in-depth. The other one is 12 pages, but it only is used in the lead for describe what the website did and who worked on it. Maybe more details from that article could be fleshed out to communicate something other than it was a directory. Two articles from the same journal only count as one source per WP:SIGCO. But if you've got more, we look forward to seeing it on Thursday or after. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is an online directory, not dissimilar to the Directory of the Catholic Church in each country. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on your rationale, Whiteguru; I'm not seeing how WP:NOTDIRECTORY is relevant. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a directory insofar as it gives a list of dioceses, churches erected, services available at said churches, community events and community services on offer. The website does this formally for each country where the Anglican communion is established. That is the function of a directory. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but (at least my reading is that) NOTDIRECTORY doesn't say we don't include directories, rather we are not a directory (of all things that exist). So Wikipedia should not list every Anglican (or Catholic, or whatever) website that's ever existed, but there's no reason it can't include a (notable) website whose primary function was to be a directory (especially one started in 1994, when search engines didn't work and such things were key to how people navigated). We have a whole category for directories. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not relevant here, its about wikipedia not being a directory itself, you can of course post articles about notable directorys. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to determine consensus as to whether the improvements are sufficient
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - NOTDIR doesn't apply, but GNG would. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page isn't a directory (so it passes), but it fails GNG. SWinxy (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whiteguru, you could update your deletion rationale if you see issues with notability, sourcing being primarily self-published, or some other issue to strengthen your vote. Maybe this will wrap up today/tomorrow or maybe it'll go on another week. ClaudineChionh has not updated the article or this page in some 2 weeks. Possibly got busy, but pinging. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DiamondRemley39 yes – I had very little breathing space between election business and school getting very busy. I can't see myself getting back to this before the last week of June. If that's too far away, happy to draftify or move to userspace. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 05:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closer: If it is not delete (still my vote), I think draftifying (I'm not double-voting) is the next best option. At present, the article is not much improved, but the more that ClaudineChionh has access to could help a little. It is a waste of time to keep this open another ~3 weeks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in agreement. The discussion need not go on another week. SWinxy (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm in agreement. The discussion need not go on another week. I am not inclined to update what I said earlier. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2022 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Autonomy Movement

Popular Autonomy Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A totally unknown party; it seems that it is not possible to find any source on this party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The MAP did not achieve success in the election it participated in, but it was a real political party and, as such, it is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "definitely encyclopedic" is based on what? On the grounds that it simply existed? You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There are no reliable third-party sources about this political movement. Actually I cannot even retrieve the archived copy of the only non-electoral source that is given. Also, it looks more like a political current inside other larger parties. Yakme (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not every group of people who come together to run a candidate are notable. We have decided political parties need clear coverage to justify an article, and that is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2022 (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 02:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscan Identity

Tuscan Identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unknown party, on the web there is only some news about its foundation and nothing more. It does not appear to have participated in any elections. The page, written in two lines, at present does not demonstrate the relevance of the party and is decidedly useless. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Tuscan Identity, formed by a breakaway group of Lega Toscana, was represented for some time in Tuscany's Regional Council and, as such, it is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a one-line article about a political movement that has no relevance whatsoever, with no evidence of any popular support – composed of one or two people in the regional council of Tuscany. Yakme (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic lacks sigcov and RS. Arguments that it should be exempt from Wikipedia's notability policies just because it was a piece of political history, notable or not, should be reminded of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 18:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pact for Sicily

Pact for Sicily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Party almost totally unknown, mentioned in some sources only as a party founded by Nicolò Nicolosi. From the page and from the sources, no relevance is revealed either at a regional or national level. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Pact of Sicily was a short-lived political party, but played a role in the decomposition and recomposition of Sicilian regionalist parties. It was established by Nicolosi during his tenure as member of the Chamber of Deputies, thus the party was represented not only in Sicily's Regional Assembly, but also in the Italian Parliament: as such, it is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...played a role in the decomposition and recomposition of Sicilian regionalist parties": can you prove a similar claim? It does not appear that this party has ever been officially represented in any assembly. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. It is only mentioned once in a footnote in a publication about Sicilian politics. Yakme (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion following Checco's improvements
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Further comment. I hope this article (the fact that its leader was a member of the Chamber of Deputies should be enough to ensure its notability) will be kept, but, otherwise, instead of deleting it and losing its history, what about merging through redirect to New Sicily? --Checco (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2022 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Right

Federal Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unknown party, which has never participated in Italian political life. It is practically impossible to find sources on this party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Federal Right was a short-lived political party, but played a role in the decomposition and recomposition of Italy's centre-right parties in the aftermath of the centre-right coalition's victory in the 2008 general election. It was established by Stefano Morselli, a former leading senator, and, as such, it is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"...played a role in the decomposition and recomposition of Italy's centre-right parties in the aftermath of the centre-right coalition's victory in the 2008 general election"?? Please, don't joke... Stefano Morselli is an encyclopedic politician, not this party, the principle of translational property does not apply in cases like this. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are little to no third-party sources on this "movement" (which was composed of two people, as far as I understand from the article?). It can become a sentence in the article about The Right (Italy). Yakme (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete rather obscure party in Italian political landscape. There aren't reliable sources showing that this party took part to any election at whatsoever level in Italy. As per the source posted in the article, the founder Stefano Morselli run unsuccessfully for mayor in Bologna under a different party... P1221 (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sources are more about Morselli than the party. NO indication of significance. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:43, 9 June 2022 (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 Alfio Marchini. Star Mississippi 02:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marchini List

Marchini List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was just a personal civic list like hundreds of other civic lists in Italy. I do not see a particular relevance to consider the page on the list as encyclopedic. No specific sources regarding the list on the page, whose name was not even Marchini List. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Italy has a strong tradition of civic lists, reminding the local political parties active in the Netherlands (see Livable Rotterdam) and other countries as well. Italy's civic lists are sometimes just electoral lists with no formal organisation, but in other cases, like this and those of the Civic Coalitions of Bologna and Padua, are actually political parties, despite being only active at the very local level. Marchini List's long-standing activity, two electoral participations and substantial electoral results make it automatically encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Marchini list" is a personal civic list like so many others, following your reasoning we could create thousands of pages of civic lists that run to the municipal ections. This would create a short circuit. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2022 (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 Leoluca Orlando. RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

139 Movement

139 Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost completely unknown movement, rarely mentioned in some sources only for its founder. The page reads only "The 139 Movement is a political party in Italy led by Leoluca Orlando": in this state it is a useless page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The fact that this political party was launched and led by the mayor of one of Italy's largest cities makes it automatically encyclopedic, in my view. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A party is encyclopedic on the basis of its relevance and notoriety, not on the basis of who launched it. In this case, notoriety is almost non-existent. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This does not have enough notability to be its own article, but it should be merged PaulPachad (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2022 (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. but a merger target can be identified and performed editorially. Star Mississippi 18:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Democratic Reformers

Party of Democratic Reformers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unknown party, born from a split of an already extremely small party, which has never participated in Italian political life. It is extremely difficult to find even sources mentioning this party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In the context of the decomposition of the political parties of Italy's "First Republic" and reconstruction of new political parties, the subject is definitely encyclopedic. Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In the context of the decomposition of the political parties of Italy's "First Republic" and reconstruction of new political parties", at each Afd, I see your opinions that are questionable, here we are talking about the splitting of the atom (without sources), not of the "decomposition of the political parties of Italy's First Republic". You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 6 June 2022 (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.

Keep, given the description of its significance, and it's backing by sources.--Autospark (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 18:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Initiative (Italy)

Liberal Initiative (Italy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unknown mini-component of the mixed group in the Chamber of Deputies, existed for a short time: the relevance of this subject is not demonstrated neither by the page nor by the existence of sources. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Liberal Initiative was a short-lived, but real political party, even if today its memory is virtually vanished: that is what encyclopedias are all about! Every little piece of political history deserves a space in Wikipedia. Articles like this (the nominator proposed a string of AfDs today) should be clearly improved, but not deleted. Of course, the passing of time makes difficult to find more sources and information in the web, but I will do my best to improve the article. I think it should be kept, anyway. At first glance I see proposed deletions as harmful and time-wasting exercises, but hopfully they could become opportunities for improving articles. --Checco (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias deal with relevant and / or interesting topics. Here we are talking about a mere component of the mixed group (not a real party) totally unknown and without relevance. You know very well that the page cannot be improved. Your assessment of keeping this page is not about the relevance of the page itself, but a position based on the principle that everything can stay on wikipedia. But is not so.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per absence of reliable, third-party sources. Yakme (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete rather obscure party, which didn't participate in any election at any level. It seems to have existed just as a parliamentary group. P1221 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the details of it might make sense mentioned on the respective politicians' page (if they are themselves notable, which is up in the air), but there's no sourcing demonstrating the exceed the GNG threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:07, 8 June 2022 (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 sourcing to back up the assertions of notability Star Mississippi 18:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party Rule Book

AfDs for this article:
Labour Party Rule Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent source to show WP:GNG, nor any indication how this political party rulebook stands out from other political party rulebooks in an encyclopedically significant way (i.e. WP:ROTM). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why this is being proposed for deletion. This is one of the most significant documents of any major political party in the world. There's a whole strand of literature on its clause IV alone: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=labour+party+clause+IV&btnG= Wikidea 13:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A single sub-part of this being notable is not grounds for having an article on the rest (notability, unlike the British monarchy, is not inherited, either downwards or upwards). This is one of the most significant documents of any major political party in the world seems like personal hyperbole and probably shows how this is WP:BIAS too. Most political parties have rule books / constitutions / ... Without a reliable source explicitly saying how the whole of it is a significant document (and not just a part of it which is already covered in its own article); this doesn't go on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its very significant, but I'm not sure it needs an article of its own. Rathfelder (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly significant document, and that reaches beyond Clause 4 and goes to areas such as candidate selection, leadership elections, party conference and the National Executive Committee. It's the sort of thing that may well be important in a future news story for an aspect that's not covered in its own article in Wikipedia. It's also useful to have an article talking about the general nature of this important document. JASpencer (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Highly significant document" requires verifiable evidence of such significance. While the document is certainly important for Labour internal affairs, that doesn't mean that the document (or the internal Labour affairs) are worthy of an encyclopedia article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to meet WP:GNG per nom - notablility provided by available sources is almost entirely limited to Clause IV and the selection process for leaders. As WP:NOPAGE states, "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." I would argue that the above commenters are right that this is an important document but its importance can and should be shown with reliable sources within articles like Labour Party (UK) and History of the Labour Party (UK). It does not warrant its own article as it fails to meet GNG by itself. SamWilson989 (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree with the last sentence of the previous AfD discussion. "Wikipedia could do with a good and well-sourced article on this or a closely related topic but, at least currently, this isn't it" as it currently has no independent sources. TSventon (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:05, 5 June 2022 (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 23:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa Ihler Institute

Khalifa Ihler Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's absolutely nothing to suggest this organization is notable in any way. They only got some visibility because of their analysis of one manifesto, and even then, I didn't hear of them until I started reading the 2022 Buffalo shooting article. There's not much of a storied history to this organization outside of that. Love of Corey (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while there is plenty of information on its notable founders and the organisation was mentioned by several reliable sources before, I've been unable to find any information in said sources that would allow for expansion of the article. Fails ORGDEPTH. Draken Bowser (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Passing mentions in several articles by RS, but not enough. Sjö (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2022 (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 Hinduism in Hong Kong. History is under the redirect since it's unclear whether merging or redirecting was desired and this can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 02:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Association of Hong Kong

Hindu Association of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. Nothing found with WP:BEFORE. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Hinduism in Hong Kong per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Here is less significant coverage and passing mentions I found about the subject:
    1. "Hong Kong Hindu Temples 'Wait and See' for 1997". Hinduism Today. 1989-10-01. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "Hari N. Sharma, now of the Hindu Mandir, was brought to Hong Kong in 1953 to help design and then serve as priest for the Happy Valley Temple. ... The temple is run by the 500-member Hindu Association of Hong Kong under the chairmanship of K. Sital. ... The oldest shrine in Hong Kong is the Happy Valley Temple, founded in 1952 through the efforts of S.T. Melwani to fulfill the religious needs of Hong Kong's largely Sindhi community (90% of all Hindus)."

    2. Vaid, K. N. (1972). The Overseas Indian Community in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 74. ISSN 0378-2689. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Before coming to the Colony, Melwani had taken an active interest in politics and social work in India under Mahatma Gandhi's leadership. And this interest Melwani continued in Hong Kong. He founded the Hindu Association in 1945 and remained its president till his death in 1964. The magnificant Hindu temple in the Happy Valley owes its existence to Mr Melwani. The late Melwani argued with the government for years that the Hindus needed a separate crematorium where religious rites could be performed and he ultimately succeeded in getting a place for this purpose at the Cape Collinson."

    3. Daswani, Kavita (1995-03-05). "A prayer for hall of fame". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "The latest client is very special: the Hindu Association in Happy Valley which has commissioned the pair to renovate the main hall of the Hindu Temple in Happy Valley. ... "He had been praying that morning that we could work on another temple here," said Lilley. Later that day they had a phone call from the Hindu Association, which had intended to renovate the main hall of the Hindu Temple in Happy Valley for some years. A meeting was scheduled that afternoon, and Lilley and Annapurna started work last October."

    4. Laxton, Andrew (1994-10-02). "Cathay lights on until 'there's a health risk'". South China Morning Post.

      The article notes: "On board tonight's flight will be the head of the Hindu Association, K. Sital. Although going to Bombay on business, he plans to find out whether there is anything overseas Indians can do to help."

    5. Thomas, Hedley (1994-09-28). "Cash goes missing from Hindu temple". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "In April last year the managing committee of the Hindu Association, which is responsible for the temple, decided to make Priest Vishal Sharma responsible for temple hall bookings, according to a notice board memorandum. A managing committee member, M. P. Shamdaswani, revealed that funds from the prayer collection plate had gone astray."

    6. "Indians angry at forgery". South China Morning Post. 1993-03-05.

      The article notes: "POLICE have been called in to investigate a forged letter purporting to be from Hindu Association president Mr Kewalram Sital."

    7. McKenzie, Scott (1995-11-10). "Jaffna refugees give up hope of ever returning". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "Since then, the local Young Men's Hindu Association has given them permission to sleep on the floor of its hall."

    8. Torode, Greg (1993-10-04). "Diners donate $77,000". South China Morning Post.

      The article notes: "Hindu Association chairman Kewalram Sital urged anyone wanting to donate to send cheques to the commission."

    9. "K. Sital". South China Morning Post. 1996-12-16.

      The article notes: "K. Sital is a Hong Kong Indian businessman. His Style Asia Group has operations in China, India and the United States, as well as in Hong Kong. His services to the Indian community include eight years as chairman of the Indian Chamber of Commerce and almost 20 years as president of the Hong Kong Hindu Association."

    10. "Pages from the past". South China Morning Post. 2002-02-26. Archived from the original on 2022-05-20. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The article notes: "Well-known Sindhi businessman K. Sital, who chaired the Indian Chamber of Commerce in 1970, '71, '73, '79, '81 and '82 has made a major contribution to the social aspects of the Indian community. He is president of the Hindu Association, which manages the Hindu Temple in Happy Valley, and chairman of the Hindu Commu-nity Trust of Hong Kong. "

    11. Kagda, Falaq; Koh, Magdalene; Nevins, Debbie (2018). Hong Kong (3 ed.). New York: Cavendish Square Publishing. p. 84. ISBN 978-1-5026-3240-1. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The religious and social activities of Hong Kong's strong Hindu community, which numbers one hundred thousand, are centered around the Hindu Temple in Hong Kong Island's Happy Valley district. The Hindu Association of Hong Kong is responsible for the upkeep of the temple, which is used for the observance of Hindu festivals, meditations, spiritual lectures, yoga classes, devotional music sessions, and other community activities."

    12. Luk, Bernard Hung-Kay (1990) [1989]. "Religion and Custom". In Tsim, T. L.; Luk, Bernard H. K. (eds.). The Other Hong Kong Report. Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. p. 321. ISBN 978-962-201-430-5. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Hindu Association of Hong Kong, founded in 1952, is responsible for the upkeep of the temple and the appointment of the priest, as well as welfare services for the Hindu community."

    13. Chemerka, William R. (2020). Gunga Din: From Kipling's Poem to Hollywood's Action-Adventure Classic. Orlando, Florida: BearManor Media. ISBN 978-1-62933-142-3. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The ban on Gunga Din extended to Hong Kong, then a British colony, following protests organized by the Hindu Association of Hong Kong."

    14. Erni, John Nguyet; Leung, Lisa Yuk-ming (2014). Understanding South Asian Minorities in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 32. ISBN 978-988-8208-34-0. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Hindu Association and the Indian Association, for example, look after the Hindu and Sikh temples in Happy Valley and in Tsim Sha Tsui, which provide the Hindus and Sikhs with a space for worship and for communal gatherings."

    15. Hall, Elvajean (1967). Hong Kong. Chicago: Rand McNally. p. 84. OCLC 1129726. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Hindu religious and social activities center around a temple in Happy Valley (see map, page 129). The Hindu Association of Hong Kong keeps up the Hindu temple, which is used for lectures, observance of festivals, meditation, Yoga classes, and the teaching of Hindi."

    16. Coulson, Gail V.; Herlinger, Christopher; Anders, Camille S. (1996). The Enduring Church: Christians in China and Hong Kong. New York: Friendship Press. p. 65. ISBN 0-377-00306-9. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "A still smaller minority—about 12,000—are Hindus. Their close- knit community is centered on the Hindu Temple in Happy Valley. The Hindu Association of Hong Kong is responsible for upkeep of the temple."

    17. Hong Kong 1976: Report for the Year 1975. Hong Kong: Information Services Department. 1976. p. 159. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Hindu Association of Hong Kong is responsible for the upkeep of the temple, which is also used for meditation periods, yoga classes and teaching Hindi to the Indian community. During 1975, the association sponsored several seminars on ancient Hindu teachings which were conducted by Hindu scholars invited from India. The seminars were held in English and were open to all nationalities. Religious music recitals are also held periodically at the temple."

    18. Faure, David, ed. (1997). A Documentary History of Hong Kong Society. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. p. 148. ISBN 962-209-393-0. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "The Hindu Association for the Hindus, which maintains a Crematorium and Cemetery, and a temple under construction."

    19. 李桂玲 (1996). 台港澳宗教概况 [Overview of Religions in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau] (in Chinese). Beijing: 東方出版社. p. 421. ISBN 9787506005821. Retrieved 2022-05-20 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "随后,马温尼( F. T. Melwani )又创立了“香港印度教协会” ( The Hindu Association of Hong Kong)."

      From Google Translate: "Subsequently, F. T. Melwani founded "The Hindu Association of Hong Kong"."

    20. 香港的宗教 [Religion in Hong Kong] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Holy Spirit Study Centre. 1988. p. 56. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The book notes: "印度廟在一九五二年建成以迎合教徒的信仰需求,香港印度教協會( THE HINDU ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG )之後便成立,始創人乃馬溫尼( F.T. MELMANI )。"

      From Google Translate: "The Hindu Temple was built in 1952 to meet the religious needs of the believers. The Hindu Association of Hong Kong ( THE HINDU ASSOCIATION OF HONG KONG ) was established after the founder was F.T. MELMANI."

    21. 陳天權 (2021). 時代見證 : 隱藏城鄉的歷史建築 [Witness of the Times: Hidden Historic Buildings in Urban and Rural] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Zhonghua Book Company. ISBN 978-988-8759-43-9. Retrieved 2022-05-20.

      The book notes: "他們從事商業工作,1948 年成立香港印度教協會,向當局申請興建印度教廟。港府在印度人墳場下方撥地給協會,1953年建了印度廟(Hindu Temple)(圖 17,18)。該廟採用印度北方廟宇的那格拉(Nagara)風格,裝飾不及南方印度廟複雜,且帶有英國建築特色。"

    There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hindu Association of Hong Kong (traditional Chinese: 香港印度教協會; simplified Chinese: 香港印度教协会) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2022 (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 Yoga as exercise. Star Mississippi 13:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation and Yoga Retreat

Meditation and Yoga Retreat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's unclear what this page is about beyond what is covered in other more specific articles, e.g. Retreat (spiritual). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.The article has been wrongly proposed for deletion. The subject of the article holds high importance in the current scenario in the public interest. Meditation and Yoga Retreat has been catching awareness of general public due to many benefits. These centres are situated across the world offering many services. Request to remove the tag.Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ari T. Benchaim. Hope you are doing well.Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. The article Retreat (spiritual) is very vast and doesn't cover the objectives in detail. It is a concept based article than activity based. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect I see the point about yoga retreats being a Thing - there's certainly sourcing for the topic. But I doubt we need a separate article. Seems to me all facets are nicely covered at the very well-developed Yoga as exercise, or could be covered there. So I'd suggest redirecting to that article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elmidae. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. The article Yoga as exercise covers many aspects of yoga. However the retreats doesn't include all of these, hence I feel this article is relevant in Wikipedia. Kindly guide. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect The way this article is constructed, there is not enough for a separate article. Meditation alone is an extremely large topic, and this article covers Yoga as exercise with dot points. Redirect is a sensible outcome. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whiteguru. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. As replied above, I feel the article Yoga as exercise covers many aspects of yoga which are not covered during retreats,hence I feel this article is relevant in Wikipedia. Kindly guide. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gardenkur: With Yoga and meditation, you could examine the Spiritual Retreat article which , you will see, is in need of expansion. I would take note of Robert McClenon's good advice rendered below, should you decide to tackle that article. The thing that is most popular among adherents of many faiths is the Vipassana Retreat, which is somewhat along the lines of this article. You could take a look here, here and perhaps, here. We do not have a specific article addressing the Vipassana retreat which combines meditation and some yoga. It is worth exploring, although. The thing is that people from many faiths - and no faith - do attend and attest the value of these retreats. Hope this helps. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whiteguru. Thanks for your reply. However if I consider as pointed out by Robert below 1. The article in brief highlights in general the purpose of 1.Meditation and Yoga retreats in simple way 2. Writing it focussed on any individual or group will make it promotional. The article has been sourced from various reliable sources to highlight the importance of such retreats organisation in general by any organisation. Kindly clarify. Gardenkur (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There are at least two problems. First, this reads like an essay or class paper rather than an encyclopedic article. It does not report what reliable sources say about the topic. It is not clear whether there would be an article if the views of reliable sources were reported, but this article does not do that. Second, the topic is unfocused, and it is not clear whether it is about retreat centers, individual or group outings to retreat centers, or what. The closer may decide whether to redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon. Hope you are doing well. Thanks for your time and suggestions on this. If the main concern as pointed out by you is agreed by others too, I will try to address that. However, as the concept of Yoga and meditation retreat is spreading globally, hence I feel this article is important as informational source in Wikipedia. Gardenkur (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:43, 27 May 2022 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of International Professionalism

Institute of International Professionalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Out of process move by a new account with a declared COI after several draft declines. I'm not seeing even an assertion notability here, but mindful of systemic bias and language issues so bringing it here for conversation Star Mississippi 14:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article shows no proof of notability. WP:MILL. Give me a feeling of promo. The Banner talk 16:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC
  • Delete. Sourcing relies solely on directory entries that are based on primary source contributions. While locating reliable secondary sources remains a challenge in Asian countries, nonetheless our WP:N requirement cannot be met by primary sources and directories. Devoid of secondary WP:RS, this article fails WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2022 (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 10:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interoperable PDK Libraries

AfDs for this article:
Interoperable PDK Libraries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2008 no consensus shortly after launch. But other than run of the mill announcements following its launch, there is nothing to indicate ORG compliant sourcing. URL is dead, which makes me think alliance is no longer, and never established notability while it existed. Star Mississippi 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Computing. Star Mississippi 13:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping to those still active from prior AfD: @Narutolovehinata5, Fabrictramp, and Malinaccier: Star Mississippi 13:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It appeared around the founding there was substantial coverage, but I can't find much now to establish notability. As the nominator indicated, the links to the Reuters articles I found in 2008 don't work---I'm sure I could find archived versions, but the fact that there has not been continued coverage makes the old coverage somewhat irrelevant. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - article is promotional in nature and there are no significant sources demonstrating that notability guidelines are met. MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2022 (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 Western States Hockey League. ✗plicit 00:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Tilt

Tucson Tilt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't establish notability. Has been unreferenced since its creation in 2006 and I can find little significant coverage of this short-lived team. The only potential coverage I can find is this local article behind a paywall. [1]MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2022 (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. There has been no policy-based input on why this article should be kept. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Party of India

Pyramid Party of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously prodded in 2010. No notability asserted, only one source Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:06, 22 April 2022 (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, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My close as a functional PROD was challenged, so I have restored it for further discussion per policy. Policy-based input would be very helpful for the next closer. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:19, 16 May 2022 (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 14:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proyecto Estrella

Proyecto Estrella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Article contains 20 cites but 12 aren't about the organization and don't mention it at all, 6 mention it in passing only, and the remaining 2 cites (#4 and #5) though they do mention the organization up to 3 times, they are not articles about the organization per se (its history, directors, accomplishments, headquarters with actual physical address, etc.) but simply that the organization was involved in some advocacy activity. WP:OR is very clear, at WP:PSTS, that article notability is to be established by secondary sources and this article contains not a single secondary source. It also states articles may contain tertiary sources; this article contains none. Finally, all 20 sources in this article are all primary sources (newspapers) which are not sufficient in and of themselves to establish notability -- especially when only one of the (WAPA-TV) can be considered mainstream (required by WP:PSTS). In addition, the article's Talk Page has, for over 1-1/2 years, questioned its notability, but no actions were taken by the articles editors to attend to it in any manner that would had provided the secondary sources required. Finally, the article also had a warning tag on it, also for well over a year, questioning its notability but, again, no one has been able to prove its notability. For these reasons the article should be deleted. Mercy11 (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'll be honest with you. I remember seeing this article years ago when I was going through all the talk pages of Puerto Rico articles and I thought 'this is not notable', but I didn't feel like going through all the sources. But now that you have mentioned it, I went through all the sources and it is exactly as you say. Most don't mention the organization at all, others mention it in passing, and #4 and #5 mention it but are not about the org. per se. Thanks. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2022 (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. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zerodha

AfDs for this article:
Zerodha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any. Existing references are either repeats of company announcements/information or articles that rely entirely on quotes/interviews with no "Independent Content" or mentions-in-passing. HighKing++ 14:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not exercise non-admin closure rights on this AfD discussion as someone did last time. Instead, allow it to run its course and leave the decision to an administrator. It's a request. -Hatchens (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This vote is going to be iconic considering current environment but Zerodha has plenty of independent in-depth discussion. There is a complete case study [2] on their success published by Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and then several more books talking about their journey [3]. They definitely have some PR agency churning coverage but beyond that, there are many good sources that contribute to notability. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "case study" was written as an exercise by students attending the Indian Institute of Management. While WP:SCHOLARSHIP allows for scholarly references, this one falls short and in my opinion fails as a RS. As for the rest - see WP:GHITS. HighKing++ 15:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surprised to see this at AFD again. In addition to the four sources I had posted at the previous AFD discussion, here's four more: [4] [5] [6] [7]. A retail company operating at such scale almost always receives WP:SUSTAINED, in-depth coverage, though older sources may be harder to dig up due to the way Google's algorithms work. M4DU7 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those four references are not indpendent, in-depth nor significant. The bloomberg is paid advertisement, the 3 and 4ths are a primary and not independent of the subject, failing WP:SIRS and WP:ORGIND and 1st reference is of a similar quality failing WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and is a pure WP:ADMASQ article, based upon very strange referencing indeed. Twenty eight references for a nine paragraph article is WP:BOMBARD 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete based on a preliminary review. An article should speak for itself and should explain, without the need for the reader to check the references, how the subject is notable, in particular, how the company satisfies corporate notability. Corporate notability is based on what third parties have written, not on what the company says about itself. This article is about what the company says about itself. This does not mean that the company is not notable, or that the company is notable. It does mean that this article does not establish notability. I have not checked the references, but the article has been reference-bombed and I should not be expected to check the references. Robert McClenon ([[User talk:Robert McCl
  • Delete this is an advertisement. It contains a list of services (which happen to be the services any brokerage firm offers as a matter of course), it discusses their fee structure (all brokerage firms have fee structure), it states some of the companies it has invested in (as do all such firms). It lists a variety of trivial awards, awards designed so a company will get one in its turn; it lists a reference to an academic analysis which HighKing has nicely explained as a student project. The news items about it are of various occasions of computer down time. This is the most trivia and ephemeral news imaginable: all we sites (includding WP) have them, and they are of interest only until they get fixed. The defense of the article by Nomadicghumakkad refers to " several more books talking about their journey" This is the most obvious form of corporate jargon, and an argument using such terms indicate the inability to tell articles from spam.
There is however , a suitable place for this content, jargon and all
the company web site. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a lot of citation spamming and some use of self-published sources coming from the company, but my quick review also shows that article has a strongly promotional tone. Based on that conclusion its enough for me to consider this article as an advertisement. MarioJump83! 07:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Scope creep How is the Bloomberg article an advertisement? I see that Marcus Wright and Michael Patterson are mentioned as the editors, and Rahul Satija the Mumbai reporter. It also mentions that it received inputs from Pei Yi Mak. All are/were Bloomberg editors/reporters. The India Today article is authored by Shwweta Punj, senior editor at India Today. The Business Standard article carries a very long, in-depth, independent commentary and that one is researched and written by Jyotindra Dubey who is now an associate editor at Economic Times. All three satisfy WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. I can see how that Forbes India article (and Forbes India in general) can be seen as unreliable. There are four more in-depth sources which I had posted at the previous AFD, all independently-written by staff/editors. The Ken also has detailed analysis of the company with articles like [8] [9]. M4DU7 (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a free workaround in case you are hit by a paywall, read the Bloomberg article on BNN Bloomberg and the Business Standard article using a Google AMP link (works on mobile). M4DU7 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the workarounds. The Bloomberg reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and people associated with the company. Where's the in-depth "Independent Content" which is required as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND? The only content which might arguably be "clearly attributable" to a source unaffiliated with the topic company is towards the end, with the paragraph starting with "Zerodha's continued success is far from guaranteed" but those last 7 sentences do not provide any in-depth information. I'd call this a puff profile and PR. The India Today article attracts the exact same criticism - where's the in-depth "Independent Content"? It is another puff profile. If you are starting to get used to seeing the characteristics of puff profiles, then you won't need to be told that The Business Insider is also a puff profile. You say it "carries a very long, in-depth, independent commentary" - that's hard to swallow considering that practically every paragraph references a claim or announcement made by the company or contains a quote. They're not "Independent" enough to meet WP:ORGIND and what's left fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it extremely hard to agree with your claim that editors from different parts of the world at Bloomberg News, which is seen as one of the most reliable sources at WP:RSP, are indulged in promotionalism. The only paragraphs with claims attributed to the company on that article are 4th, 8th, 14th and the last one. The Business Standard article is indeed independently authored, and one of the best sources on this company. Just because it carries a bunch of quotes from the company, we cannot disregard all the independent research on that article.
The phenomenon of admiration of stories of entrepreneurs, businesses, artists, sportspeople, etc, and disruption/success stories in general is very common across the media industry in the Indian subcontinent. But it doesn't necessarily mean that all these articles are sponsored "puff pieces". As someone from India, I see this on a daily basis even in print newspapers and on TV channels. We need to evaluate and assess the sources on a case-by-case basis. Generally, articles written by reputed editors and carrying independent commentary satisfy SIRS and ORGIND, unless there is evidence of material republished from a press release or there is unambiguous promotion of the product. Your definition of "puff piece" fits those articles that do not mention the editor's name and simply say bureau, newsdesk, agencies, PTI, etc. If we continue to discount editorial pieces that use an appreciative tone, we'll end up deleting a majority of articles on notable Indian companies based on the incorrect assumption that all media houses and journos in the country are on the company's payroll. M4DU7 (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@M4DU7 Bloomberg aggregates news. Bloomberg also aggregates PR pieces. You need to learn to tell the difference. It's not hard. You are arguing very strongly to keep an article with poor references and poor notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Per HighKing's analysis of the sourcing. Much churn and promotion, not a lot of fire for the smoke. Rockphed (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2022 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smallcase

AfDs for this article:
Smallcase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was a relatively recent AfD in which several socks participated and have been blocked - see WP:Articles for deletion/Smallcase. Notwithstanding the concerns over COI editing in general, the topic fails our notability criteria. None of the references discussed at the previous AfD meet WP:NCORP and none have been provided or found since. HighKing++ 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing++ 14:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 14:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mint appears to be non-reliable, TechCrunch can only be used to verify they exist, as it's a non-reliable source. Rest appear to be blogs or advertorials. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom. I tried to rewrite this entity's page into survival state (duly assisted by Timtrent). But, not confident with the outcome. As one of the alternatives to deletion, merging it with Zerodha could be explored as per WP:ATD-M. Again... it depends on the general consensus derived from this discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to something that confirms this company is owned by Zerodha? HighKing++ 19:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing there are few cues pointing towards it - 1, and 2. But, here's the catch... there is always a difference between "getting an investment" and "being backed". So, the confirmation is based on one's interpretation. Since, it's a company AfD discussion and you're an expert in this domain... I'll stick to your "final call". - Hatchens (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's not the same thing at all. Getting an investment is pretty much the same as "being backed" and neither mean that the investors/backers are the owners. HighKing++ 11:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, then it's a delete. Period! - Hatchens (talk) 08:35, 19 May 2022 (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 14:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MalariaWorld

MalariaWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources; only mentions I could find were this article, which is clearly an advertisement by the journal's editor anyway and the name of the journal listed in some databases (e.g. [10], [11]). All the references bar one within the article are to the group's own website and the only other is a dead link to a related group's site. BigDom (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2022 (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. ✗plicit 03:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CMT Association

CMT Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization which lacks reliable third party sources. Article reads in a rather promotional/advertising tone. Tinton5 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added multiple reliable sources. It just needed a clean up. As mentioned in talk page, CMT Association is quite notable in the technical analysis space. I have re-written it so there's no promotional language, and removed all the content pasted by previous CMT staff. I'll continue monitor this space and will revert any attempt by CMT Association to advertise. Kazuha1029 (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per reason above, if no objection, I'll also remove the citation template. Kazuha1029 (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fintor interested to hear your thoughts as you previously contributed to multiple finance-related articles.Kazuha1029 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 31 May 2022 (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Foundation for Cancer Research

AfDs for this article:
National Foundation for Cancer Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted in 2016. Current incarnation of article seems to be making no better attempt at asserting notability than the previous one, but I don't know if it qualifies for G4. The award granted does not seem to be a major one worthy of WP:GNG Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1505022/
  2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/tamara-p-salisbury-cancer-foundation-co-founder/2013/11/23/4e23fbf2-5394-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html
  3. Their records are part of the permanent collection here http://scarc.library.oregonstate.edu/coll/cameron/catalogue/cameron12_1-10.html
I could go on, but it would seem like bludgeoning. CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The National Foundation for Cancer Research is referenced in a wealth of sources. The WP article needs some work but that's not a reason to nominate for deletion.Greenshed (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Referenced" is not the same as "notable". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:34, 16 May 2022 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn DAO

Unicorn DAO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Guardian mention of Unicorn DAO is two sentences. Only source that passes GNG is Time. Sungodtemple (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I read up on the GNG and added some sources (rolling stone) etc etc . I do think it fights the General Notability Guidelines - "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Significant Coverage - Time, Rolling Stone, Decrypt, Coin Telegraph, Guardian
Reliable Sources - Time and Rolling Stone are notable - Decrypt and Coin Telegraph are widely respected in the crypto world.
Regarding the Guardian Article - "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - Guardian article is cited for first purchase
Thank you for reviewing Pathofkarma (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also updated with Grimes tweet from today with announcement of joining. Pathofkarma (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 paragraphs on unicorn dao in guardian article. Pathofkarma (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1 - Removed non GNG sources. Leaving Sources Time + Guardian + CNN.Pathofkarma

Update 2 -Coin Telegraph is a respected source in Crypto and Web3 News. Thank you for review Sungodtemple CAPTAIN RAJU(T)

Update 3 - Added ArtNet + ArtCritic Report on % sales of female nft artists.

Update 4 - Re GNG - added Rolling Stone. Assume Articles from Time + Rolling Stone + Mention in Guardian + multiple crypto outlets is enough to fulfill GNG. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) 23:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article does not mention UnicornDAO and the CoinTelegraph article has a single-word trivial mention. I cannot access the Rolling Stone article, but given its title and link I would assume it is focused on Pussy Riot and not Unicorn DAO. This leaves Time and Decrypt. To be honest, I think UkraineDAO has enough GNG sources to merit its own article. The UnicornDAO article is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Sungodtemple (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you cannot access the Rolling stone / it is not paywalled - the byline is "They’re also launching a new organization to benefit women and LGBTQ+ artists called UnicornDAO" and have 6 long paragraphs specific to Unicorn DAO.
Removing Coin Telegraph as that isn't a great source of info - Decrypt article is dedicated (however neither of these are on perrenial list).
Adding Grimes tweet from today with her involvement - https://twitter.com/Grimezsz/status/1525981460561137664?s=20&t=cbeIrcsaeB5VPW1pN7FSzg
Please let me know when you have reviewed the rolling stone article. Pathofkarma (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Summarizing here for easier review:

Summary of Perrenial Sources that cover this article according to guidelines on the General Notability Guidelines "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Perennial Sources

- Time - Sole focus of article / Exclusive

- Variety - Multiple Paragraphs and interview topic

- Guardian - Multiple mentions and interview topic

- Rolling Stone - Byline of Article, many paragraphs

Tangential

- CNN - Contextual

Not Perennial (but substantial coverage)

- Decrypt

- Tweet of Musician Grimes

- Bloomberg —

User Sungodtemple who flagged for deletion has stated they have not reviewed the refs and are basing off title alone, or are only searching for the business name. Requesting review of refs by Sungodtemple or admin and push to oppose/keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) 02:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova - the WP:ORG guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. This is a newly-formed organization, and it appears to be WP:TOOSOON to meet these heightened standards at this time. For example, this March 2022 article in Rolling Stone is focused on a new song release and has one graf of independent content about Unicorn Dao and a quote from Tolokonnikova about the goal of the organization. The March 2022 CNN article is about a fundraiser organized by Unicorn Dao, quotes Tolokonnikova and the organization website, and includes independent context that does not seem to add a lot of WP:ORGDEPTH. The March 2022 Time article has an overall focus on Tolokonnikova and includes a substantial focus on the launch of the organization, including quotes from founders and general as well as specific context. The March 2022 Guardian interview with Tolokonnikova includes indepenent content about her, and quotes from her about Unicorn Dao. March 2022 coverage in The Art Newspaper is mostly a collection of quotes related to the launch of Unicorn Dao, including some focused generally on the art market. March 2022 coverage from Variety is based around an interview with Tolokonnikova and includes content related to the public art exhibition Patriarchy RIP curated by Unicorn Dao. I have also not found independent and reliable coverage beyond this early burst of publicity, and WP:SUSTAINED coverage is needed to support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re WP:SUSTAINED have added Bloomberg coverage from May.
Time / March 2022 on formation of DAO
Rolling Stone / March 2022 on formation of DAO
Variety / March 2022 on public art exhibit
Bloomberg / May 2022 on activist initiatives
Should be GNG as well as show sustained Pathofkarma (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2022-05-19/unicorndao-working-to-fix-crypto-bro-culture-video — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) 03:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg TV source is an interview with Tolokonnikova, and her statements are not independent content that can help support notability. According to the notability guideline for organizations, 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. Beccaynr (talk) 04:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking on the relist recheck by an admin, thank you 45.19.165.201 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe there are enough reliable sources for a stand alone article. I think this new industry is catching news rapidly. JK.Kite (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NCRYPTO states that crypto-centric publications may not be used to show notability. I do not currently have an opinion one way or the other on the rest of the sources provided. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 22:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sum of Perrenial Sources fits GNG, with seperate and significant events that don't fit into another article. Pathofkarma (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
    Comment Per WP:ORGDEPTH, with the exception of the Time article, these sources are not significant, including because Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Per this guideline, Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. The overall coverage appears to be focused on Tolokonnikova, so what she has developed can be included in her article, and if sufficient sources become available to support the notability of the organization, a separate article can be created in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Rolling Stone, Variety, Guardian use multiple paragraphs each discussing topics outside the scope of Time Mag article specific to Unicorn. 45.19.165.201 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have discussed the sources in my comments above as well as the applicable guideline, but please also note that per the WP:PROMO policy, Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts, so this should be considered when assessing sources based on promotional quotes from the founders and the organization's website. Beccaynr (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I spent some time on reading the sources and concluded that GNG is nearly met. Sources are from authentic media houses and everyone thinks that merging and toosoon are the options so def not a delete. Elena Marcus D (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the sources are OK, and although Tolokonnikova is the face of the organization and its main spokesperson, there's enough coverage of the organization's activity in reliable sources beyond just her activity. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing++ 21:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova or Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, no attributed journalist, Forbes contributors, etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than just "RS" for establishing notability.
  • Since the topic is a company/organization, we therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • "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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company
  • This from Time is a profile on Tolokonnikova before the topic organization had even come into existence. All of the information is provided by Tolokonnikova and the article has no "Independent Content" (fails ORGIND) and no in-depth information on the company (it's all forward-looking crystal ball stuff), fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • This from The Art Newspaper also relies entirely on information available online from the company and from Tolokonnikova, also fails ORGIND
  • Neither this from CNN nor this from ArtNet don't even mention this organization, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This from The Guardian is mainly about Tolokonnikova but mentions the topic organization in passing using quotes from her, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Variety is based on an interview with Tolokonnikova and the topic organization gets a mention-in-passing, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • This Bloomberg piece is an interview with Tolokonnikova, fails ORGIND
  • This from decrypt.co takes all its information from a co-founder, Rebecca Lamis, fails ORGIND.
None of the reference meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep With Time and the multiple other ref's, we've got notability. I've also found a brief mention in LA Weekly, [12] and brief mention in Italian Vanity Fair [13]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Please provide paragraph/page numbers as to *why* Time (and multiple other refs) does not fail ORGIND and meets CORPDEPTH/NCORP please. HighKing++ 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They're acceptable sources. A bunch of little sources ad up to enough of a mention in my books to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks for the reasoning. Except you may not therefore be aware that combining sources doesn't qualify those references towards notability as per WP:SIRS. We don't combine little sources and say that the combination is the same as a big source. HighKing++ 14:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Nadezhda Tolokonnikova. I agree with the assessments of HighKing. The references do not establish notability. Merko (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepstrike duplicate !vote Stands on its own. Disagree with Merge as it is separate from Pussy Riot. It is founded by Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, but also includes other notable founders - Beeple, Grimes, Guy Oseary who have not been involved on a notable business together prior Pathofkarma (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Pathofkarma (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
  • Comment So far, not one Keep !voter has even tried to justify, using reasoning and guidelines, why any of the references meets WP:NCORP. This is not a !vote-counting exercise. HighKing++ 20:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article mostly focuses on an unrelated Pussy Riot protest and NFT, then offers limited content from the UnicornDAO website, what appears to be a crypto publication, and promotional statements from Tolokonnikova, without sufficient depth per the heightened standard for sources in the WP:ORG guideline discussed above. Beccaynr (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 01:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace

AfDs for this article:
Jews for Israeli–Palestinian Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating for the same reasons. 1st AfD was closed as no consensus.

Non-notable organization. Trivial coverage in both English and Swedish sources. Mooonswimmer 13:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Before reaching my conclusion I reviewed the argument in the recent AfD. I see it was closed as "no consensus" after being relisted twice. I also did some searching, found some sources and added them in. I think these additions demonstrate notability. CT55555 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per argument of CT55555. I further would say the sources proposed by @User:Goldsztajn in the AfD discussion earlier this year are strong enough to indicate notability. Historyday01 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per argument of CT55555. per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I posted 13 sources at the last AfD, I do not think it necessary to post the same sources here. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the nominator. I see you describe yourself as a "super-duper-hyper-inclusionist". There seems to be very little appetite to delete this. Is it too early to suggest WP:SNOWBALL keep? CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My philosophy has shifted a bit in that regard, and I'm not too keen on having the page deleted or anything. This is just a discussion to help me train my Wikipedia muscles a bit. I'll be sifting through @Goldsztajn's proposed sources sometime tomorrow. I'm not fluent in Swedish, so it'll take me a bit of time. Mooonswimmer 22:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer That's not a particularly encouraging reply nor grounds for an AfD. At the very least, it demonstrates a lack of WP:BEFORE on your part. I second CT55555's call for a SNOWBALL here and encourage you to withdraw the nomination. Take as much time as you want considering the sources, but clogging AfD with nominations for "training" purposes is somewhat disruptive. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've carried out the necessary preliminary checks.
Citation [1]. Encyclopedia, tertiary source. 1 sentence in a 2930 page selection. Doesn't help establish notability.
Citation [2] Goes more into depth. This works.
Citation [3] Doesn't help establish notability, for obvious reasons.
Citation [4] Interview, primary source. Doesn't count toward notability. The publication of the interview in a reputable source would be a strong indicator of possible notability. Where was this interview published? Mooonswimmer 23:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #4, the citation states where it is published (palestinagrupperna i sverige). Please forgive me if my enthusiasm to participate in an AfD-for-training-purposes beyond convincing every other editor that this is good enough to keep. Combined with the very recent closed AfD, the justification for this one is on even thinner ice than I first realised. I really think you should reconsider withdrawing this one. CT55555 (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Safe to say it doesn't count toward notability, don't you agree? And see my comment below. Mooonswimmer 23:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think that's safe to say. I think there is an established consensus that the hypothesis that interviews don't count towards notability at AfD is not agreeable to the wikipedia community. So I would say that a source the includes interviews (some by people connected to the organisation, some from a Palestinian organisation that is collaborating with them) is that it's open for debate. It's not the New York Times, but it's not nothing either.
I would also emphasize that we're allowed to consider the overall citation situation, lots of small mentioned can add up to notability.
This isn't a clear cut case. But it does seem clearly enough for everyone here to say "keep" and even you said you don't want to delete it, so what are we debating here? CT55555 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 42#Interviews As A Reliable Source For Core Notability Claims?
Consensus seems to be "keep" per GNG, or per Goldsztajn's proposed sources. If you could explicitly point out 3 reliable, independent, secondary sources, that'd be great. I've addressed Goldsztajn's sources in a comment below. Mooonswimmer 00:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create this article. I'm a volunteer editor. I hope my work was a contributing factor in convincing the room. I again state my reluctance to participate further in your training of your "Wikipedia muscles", I think it's a bad basis for an AfD and not good use of my time. CT55555 (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m well aware of that. Thanks for your contributions to the article. And perhaps I could’ve worded that better. I usually stick to working on my own articles on Wikipedia. By “training my Wikipedia muscles”, I meant engaging in discussions so I could learn more about how to interpret and apply guidelines, and how to gauge what belongs on Wikipedia and what doesn’t. I didn’t randomly nominate this page for deletion so I could use the AfD as a playground. I did the preliminary checks after stumbling upon the article for a second time. I’m unable to see how it passes WP:GNG. Again, I’m not very active in AfD discussions, but I thought one was supposed to justify their vote. Not sure why it would be a waste of time to help an active editor understand how X article is valuable. I hope the others will eventually pitch in. Happy editing! Mooonswimmer 00:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the previous AfD:

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] There's also a little bit more than 1/2 a page describing the organisation and its history here[9] and there was international coverage when the Israeli ambassador to Sweden vandalised an artwork by one of its members.[10][11][12][13]

References

  1. ^ Katz, Olle (29 August 2015). "Debattinlägg: "Riksdagsledamöter stöttar israeliska högerextremister"". SVT Nyheter (in Swedish).
  2. ^ "Svenska judar oeniga om vägen till fred i Israel". Svenska Dagbladet (in Swedish). 9 January 2003.
  3. ^ "DEBATT: Skilj på legitim Israelkritik och judehat" (in Swedish). Göteborgs-Posten. 11 October 2021.
  4. ^ "DEBATT: Palestiniernas folkrätt glöms bort i debatten". www.expressen.se (in Swedish). 3 Dec 2021.
  5. ^ "DN Debatt. "Oriktiga uppgifter om SodaStream"" (in Swedish). Dagens Nyheter. 19 July 2013.
  6. ^ "Judiskt stöd till Mana". Arbetaren (in Swedish). 29 January 2008.
  7. ^ "Judisk kritik mot Ebba Busch Thor". Dagen (in Swedish). 25 August 2016.
  8. ^ Helgesson, Fredrik (22 February 2017). "De vill lösa Israel-Palestinakonflikten utan våld". Sveriges Radio (in Swedish).
  9. ^ Landy, David (2011). Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights : Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel. London: Zed Books. p. 113. ISBN 9781848139299.
  10. ^ "Israeli ambassador vandalises art exhibit". The Irish Times. 17 January 2004.
  11. ^ "Israeli Says Artwork Is 'Call to Kill'". Los Angeles Times. 18 January 2004.
  12. ^ Doneson, Daniel A (Autumn 2004). "Snow White, the Ambassador, and the Aesthetics of Death : Azure - Ideas for the Jewish Nation". azure.org.il.
  13. ^ "Sharon Praises Ambassador's Art Attack". DW.COM. Deutsche Welle. 18 January 2004.
[1] Am I being daft, or is the organization not even mentioned in the article?
[2] Paywall, I might be missing out on some in-depth coverage. Could you please share the relevant content?
[3] Not seeing any ample coverage, if any at all...
[4] "By Staffan Granér, Spokesperson Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace (YIPF)" Is this the non-trivial, independent coverage?
[5] Another paywall, would appreciate you sharing the relevant material.
[6], [7], [12] Perhaps you could explain how these count toward notability.
[8] Again, trivial mention. How does this help establish notability?
[10], [11], [13] Coverage is limited to briefly mentioning that Dror Feiler is involved with the group. Mooonswimmer 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've ignored the discussion in Landry and cut off an important part of my comment from the first nomination: "40-year old organisation, its representatives have appeared regularly in the Swedish media, some examples from the last 20 years" (the first 8 refs). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Landry? Not sure what you mean. I'm trying to apply WP:CORP.
"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
I addressed each source you've proposed, as well as the sources in the article. If you could point out at least 3 sources fulfilling the guidelines, then notability will be established and the Keep votes would be justified.
Any coverage besides trivial, passing mentions? Other than that, any major achievements, controversies, alliances? Perhaps some of these are mentioned in the paywalled articles. Mooonswimmer 13:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A misspelling: the Landy text, footnote 9. Picking apart sources this way misses the forest for the trees. NB: WP:NONPROFIT: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A further (last) contribution: simple use of machine translation of the Swedish articles shows JfIPP has frequent appearances in the Swedish media. Two examples: "Christian Democrat leader Ebba Busch Thor will speak at an Israel-friendly demonstration in Stockholm this weekend. But the organization behind the demonstration is criticized by Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace." or "Jews for Israeli-Palestinian peace lack a strategy!". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2022 (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. insufficient evidence to indicate they meet WP:ORG Star Mississippi 02:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young India Foundation

Young India Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to cross the notability threshold per WP:NORG – the page reads like an advertisement and mostly describes what the organisation intends to do. Yet, their actual achievement seems to be a campaign whose website [14] is currently dead. They also have scored one TED talk, one TV interview, and two articles in The Logical Indian and Youth Ki Awaaz, both generally considered WP:UNRELIABLE. The remaining references are to YouTube and Twitter. The organisation's most recent Facebook post is from July 2021,[15] their tweets have also been rather sparse.[16]

According to Indian Government data, Young India Foundation was registered only in 2019.[17]

Overall, despite the current promotional language, I see little about this organisation suitable for an encyclopaedic article. — kashmīrī TALK 09:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that the website of the Why 25 campaign is still up. I don't understand how an official TED Talk alongside multiple TEDx talks is unworthy of notability for the user and their work. YIF's work is far different than any other organization as it helps young people from independent backgrounds be elected to office.
The Hindu has also covered Young India Foundation and the work they do for India's young.
The remaining references are of interviews that are on Youtube. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, YIF's Instagram presence is quite active. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORGCRIT: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
A "shared" article in The Hindu plus (scant) social media activity doesn't really cut it.
The three latest Instagram posts are from 13th May, 21st April and 22nd January. Less than one post a month!
The Why25 web page is a section of the main organisational website, not an additional online presence.
In short, there's not only lack of coverage in independent sources (barring a single article in The Hindu) – there's little in terms of evidence of any activity by the organisation. — kashmīrī TALK 08:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom. The single Hindu article isn't enough for notability. Hemantha (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2022 (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. as to whether this can be handled editorially, and no indication further input is forthcoming. No objection to a re-nomination when more input might come. Star Mississippi 14:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North American Association of Indian Students

North American Association of Indian Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Article is basically puffery. A recently (2020) founded organisation that has only garnered brief mentions in local media, usually in relation to their election activism in 2020 and mostly as brief quotes from its staff. Contrary to the requirement of NORG, it has not received significant coverage in independent sources and thus does not seem appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. — kashmīrī TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. — kashmīrī TALK 09:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious as to what user Kashmiri believes is enough references to support an organization doing work. There are ways to change the article if it is 'basically puffery', but to disregard it's 'brief mention in local media' is not fair. I am listing out articles by institutions like The New York Times, Washington Post, India Today, NPR, and many other. There is also frequent broadcast coverage of the work they do. Here are some of the coverage they have on broadcast channels: NDTV,NDTV, Asiaville, CNN News 18, NewsX, News 18. I believe that is enough for significant coverage.
    I would like to work with the user to edit the article in a way where it is not a puff piece but informative.
    New York Times, Washington Post, Hindustan Times, News 18, PIE News, Vice News, Business Wire, News Minute, The Michigan Daily, Voice of America, Scroll, Inside Higher Ed, India Today, The Indian Express, CNET, and many others that I will not waste your time with. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews with Kaushik about immigration matters are not a coverage of the organisation. Let me quote from WP:NORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. To put it succinctly, there would need to be a number of publications in reliable sources about the organisation. The listed references don't offer that – they only contain a few quotes from Kaushik plus a few video appearances of him. That's not what is meant by significant coverage of an organisation. — kashmīrī TALK 07:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I encourage other individuals to please comment on this, as I believe User Kashmiri has an inherent bias (explicitly shown from their username). From the plethora of credible and substantial coverage linked, there aren't just 'a few quotes from Kaushik.' Rather, NAAIS has been instrumental in the past few years on a variety of issues and that deserves the references and coverage they have received. Whether it was COVID relief for students of Indian origin, the Trump administration ban against students, vaccination issues, complexity for international students, fundraising for Oxygen relief within India, an umbrella organization for Indian students, and could keep on naming so many systemic issues that NAAIS has taken to become an organization with a large following + credible work. To suggest to delete and accuse of it as puffery is demeaning to the work.
    I respect the work you put in into maintaining Wikipedia, but the work that NAAIS has done is of value and importance for a growing demographic. I request others to also comment. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, Wikipedia is not there to list all entities that do "work of value and importance". Our criteria are significantly stricter, as you can read at WP:NORG. — kashmīrī TALK 20:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I tend to agree with our Kashmiri user. Bias has nothing to do with it, we're looking at notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable with edits 49.248.235.63 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable as per nom, puffery. Oaktree b (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Oaktree,
    Thank you for your response. I will begin to edit the piece to make it not puffery. My goal is to create information about the work being done. Will make sure to take ou the puffery, but I do believe that 'notable' is not an issue here. As the only organization that has played a huge part in actively organizing for young Indians with quotations to go around, I do believe this is important. Surjanpatarkar (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing puffery. Notable organization and worthy if puffery is edited. Rajkumarramana (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2022 (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 00:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numb & Number

Numb & Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Might juuust squak by NMUSIC6, but it's not clear Harrow is independently notable of sigh, and Kawashima redirects there. Unable to find evidence of coverage to meet GNG for this one off collaboration, nor identify a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 20:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. While this may meet WP:MUSICBIO #6 as "an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians", my searches have found no coverage in reliable sources for this collaboration, and MUSICBIO does not guarantee notability, simply stating that topics may be notable if they meet some of the criteria there. North America1000 17:49, 29 May 2022 (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! 05:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rockford-Montgomery Labs

AfDs for this article:
Rockford-Montgomery Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2008 no consensus, where closer acknowledged it was an A7 candidate. While it subsequently made the news for allegedly re-neging on sponsorship agreement, there is zero evidence of notability for the company or its product. Star Mississippi 16:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I can't find any, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:46, 2 June 2022 (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 00:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namdhari's Fresh

Namdhari's Fresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is some coverage about their possible acquisition and opening of new locations, but no coverage that approaches the level required for corporate notability. Star Mississippi 13:42, 14 May 2022 (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 11:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public Work

Public Work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Many of the refs are to the company website. Most of the others are minor mentions of the firm that primarily discuss projects they are associated with. No in-depth significant coverage of the firm itself. MB 00:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 21 May 2022 (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 23:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universities' Council for the Education of Teachers

Universities' Council for the Education of Teachers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find evidence of this charity's notability, nor can I identify a viable AtD Star Mississippi 22:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 27 May 2022 (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 23:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Society of Digital Forensics & eDiscovery

American Society of Digital Forensics & eDiscovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Survived PROD by an editor later discovered to be a sock. Could have been deleted as a copyright violation, but that's been cleaned up so we're here. (Note: if it's kept, it will need major RevDel) I am unable to find independent, reliable source based coverage of the association beyond confirmation that it exists. Star Mississippi 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 27 May 2022 (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. Nobody has challenged valereee's improvements, so I take silence as equalling consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Friendly

Vegan Friendly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are some reliable sources about a commercial, but no in-depth coverage. It does not meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The organization lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and only mentioned in passing in the independent references provided on page. Meatsgains(talk) 22:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article got better by improving it Adam080 (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How should I improve this article to avoid being deleted? Is it that it does not have enough reliable sources? What do you mean there is no in-depth coverage? Adam080 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm improving the article! :) Adam080 (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No deleting this!!! It is a good article!!!. The organization and its founder Omri Paz have lots and lots of coverage in Hebrew! Their materials and lectures have been viewed millions of times!!! Like look at these sources: [18][19][20]חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But maybe we should try to find articles that the main subject is not vegan friendly, that way it is independant Adam080 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really the same here, Omri Paz is Vega Friendly and Vegan Friendly is Omri Paz. And these sources cover Vegan Friendly activity. חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seeing decent covergae, and some already added, not really seeing grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the reliable sources with significant coverage independent of the subject, as required by WP:NCORP? MarioGom (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Last chance to reach consensus!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've gone through and heavily edited, and I think this is a notable organization. There's sigcov in multiple RS, including outside of Israel. valereee (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2022 (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 01:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish National Socialist Party

Kurdish National Socialist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1) based on a Medium article which is not RS per Wikipedia:MEDIUM, 2) name gives no results on Wikipedia (not in its native names either) Semsûrî (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the obvious caveat here is there may be coverage in Iraqi RS that aren't available or searchable for me, but nothing in English sources suggests they are a notable organization, and Iraqi militant groups are somewhat of a focus on English sources so it's not like they would totally escape western radar. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:36, 25 May 2022 (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 World Jewish Congress. Star Mississippi 17:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Diplomatic Corps

Jewish Diplomatic Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organisation; the sources only estabilsh that WP:ITEXISTS. Amisom (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could not find any reliable sources or news articles establishing any notable information on the actions of this group. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to World Jewish Congress I have evaluated the references. The first reference covers the organization rejoining the World Jewish Congress. The second source is an interview with a member of the organization, but does not cover anything about it. I conducted a Google search and saw some articles (including one not independent of the subject), social media accounts, and insignificant mentions of the group. However, I found these: [21], [22], [23]. Let me know what you think about these sites' abilities to establish the article's notability. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Even nom acknowledges that sources exist. Some are reliable and independent, while others lack depth; this is probably due it being something of an ad-hoc advocacy offshoot of WJC. In addition to what LPS found, I found this, which mentions campus activity, and this trivial mention. WP:SPINOUTs of offshoot organisations are definitely permitted, especially since the World Jewish Congress, at almost 15k words and 200kb, is simply WP:TOOBIG to add on an additional topic like this one, which can be expanded a little further. And while I said "weak" (because we should be mindful of WP:ORGCRIT) I think there is just enough to go on. Havradim leaf a message 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My 'acknowledgingt hat sources exist' is nothing to do with the question of notability. See WP:EDPN. Amisom (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No WP:GNG problem and, as an independent organization and from a long article, the WP:SPINOUT is justified. gidonb (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to World Jewish Congress as WP:ATD. This is an organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company. Topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 13:01, 4 June 2022 (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 01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Sanctions Project

Internet Sanctions Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources here are mostly primary sources, even on user-generated platforms, and many do not even mention the Internet Sanctions Project. It does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It looks like it meets WP:GNG to me... The original author only included four citations to mainstream media references (The Register, the Washington Post, Heise and the Associated Press), but those aren't insignificant, and a quick search found a ton more, which I added a few of. The news media seems to view both the project itself as significant, and the opinions of the people who're doing the project as individually significant. And it seems like most of the organizers are notable individually as well, since there are preexisting Wikipedia pages about them. Perhaps the article would be improved if any of the primary sources which weren't contributing usefully were culled, and the remainder were moved into the External links section? Otherwise, for a relatively short article, it seems well-written and well-supported with citations. EVhotrodder (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources are you referring to, exactly? I see 8 hits for Internet Sanctions Project on Google. The Washington Post piece [24] do not mention the project at all. It's just a quote by one of the founders? That poses two problems: 1) notability is not inherited, there may be some info due for the founder page, but that doesn't make this project notable, and 2) WP:ORGCRIT requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that's simply not existent here. MarioGom (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references in significant mainstream international media refer to the letter and solution proposed by this active organization, which seems to play a significant role in an important contemporary debate. Seems consistent with WP:GNG and WP:NCORP to me. Detlevore (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mention WP:NCORP, can you cite the exact sources that provide significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? MarioGom (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has lots of references, but none of them are about this organization. In fact, I couldn't find one that even mentioned the organization. A Google news+archive search turns up zero results. I am not sure what references in mainstream media outlets the keep !voters could possibly be talking about. agtx 15:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 17 May 2022 (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 03:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uzungöl Dursun Ali İnan Museum

Uzungöl Dursun Ali İnan Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I worked on the article but I have question marks in my head about the article's notability. I'm closer to the deletion of the article. Kadı Message 19:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 16 May 2022 (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 05:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old Berkeley Beagles

Old Berkeley Beagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Directory listings and trivial mentions are nowhere near enough. Newspaper archive search produced nothing useful. AusLondonder (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for similar reasons to those I gave for the Isle of Wight Foxhounds article. We need to slim down our excessive coverage of minor Anglosphere minutiae. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. However, I do not agree with the reasoning above. We do not need to slim down our excessive coverage of minor Anglosphere minutiae, but rather increase coverage of non-anglosphere topics. --Bduke (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2022 (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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 11:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Wells Planetarium

AfDs for this article:
John C. Wells Planetarium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not seem to have changed much since last deletion discussion, so the previous redirect should be restored. MarioGom (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2015-07 (closed as merge to James Madison University)
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 22 May 2022 (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 Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. Anything worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Youth Party of Northern Ireland

Alliance Youth Party of Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Any standalone article on an organization needs to meet WP:NORG, but I cannot find such coverage. For example, there are only 9 results on Google news all of which are either op-eds (not RS) or brief mentions. I'm told this article was created as a sizesplit from the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, but if the info is UNDUE there it can just be removed without creating a separate article that does not meet notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 23:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very hasty with the nomination. I'm not going to pretend there's lots of sources to choose from however the ones found are WP:RS and does meet basic notability guidelines. I wish this was discussed prior rather than straight to AfD. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also it looks like it isn't formally registered as a separate organisation, like some other youth wings of bigger entities are; they're just the youth of this political party under an informal banner. I don't think anyone can argue that the parent article doesn't meet criteria therefore I see no reason why this fork should be treated differently. All a redirect would do is create a long messy parent article. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't see any independent sources that provide in-depth coverage, so I don't think GNG is met either. WP:NORG applies to "an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose", and I don't see anywhere that it requires being legally registered. (t · c) buidhe 12:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's 2 independent newspaper articles about them and they're listed on various international political organisations' websites. It's not perfect but certainly enough to pass. Also the hope is that someone will improve the article and add to it as time goes on. There's also 50 links to the article within Wikipedia. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the "2 independent newspaper articles" referred to are one that interviews the Alliance Youth leader but fails WP:ORGIND and an op-ed that does not mention Alliance Youth in its text. Both articles are by Rosalind Skillen in Belfast Telegraph. (t · c) buidhe 13:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well it doesn't fail WP:ORGIND because the Belfast Telegraph is an independent Northern Irish newspaper, where's the supposed "vested interest" there? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"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." The article only covers Alliance Youth leader Luke Patterson for five sentences and just repeats what he says without independent analysis; that's neither intellectually independent nor significant coverage. (t · c) buidhe 14:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally how journalism works. The Belfast Telegraph is independent source unaffiliated to the subject and the article is an original piece covering all the NI political youth wings, not just this one. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not looked into this particular case in any detail, but the position that interviews can not count towards WP:GNG was not accepted by users when it was last discussed. A proposal to add a sentence to that effect to notability guidelines was rejected. A number of users specifically stated that interviews conducted in national level news organisations would contribute to WP:GNG. For a Northern Irish political party, I would say that Belfast Telegraph is a national level source. However, from what is being said above, it seems that the subject of the interview is Luke Patterson, and the BT article doesn't talk much about the organisation he leads? Is that the case? If so, it might confer notability on Patterson rather than the Alliance youth group.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Boynamedsue Yes that is accurate. Furthermore, since this article is about an organisation the coverage has to meet the intellectual independence standard quoted above. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at the minute I am leaning towards the idea that relevant parts of the article should be merged into Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. Above user Abcmaxx mentions two news sources giving WP:SIGCOV exist, I couldn't find them in the discussion or article, which were they? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, rereading the discussion I've found it. The Skillen article does not mention Alliance Youth Party by name, it is talking about all Norn Ironish Youth Parties and is an opinion article. The coverage of Patterson is the other one, that's not WP:SIGCOV of the Youth Party. So I'd vote it should be deleted, with whatever important stuff not already found in Alliance Party of Northern Ireland added there. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except if you merge it back you'll have an incredibly long parent article, hence the WP:SIZESPLIT to a WP:FORK. I've already said that this part of the Alliance Party and not a separate organisation, and the former is clearly notable, I cannot see why this isn't a legitimate fork.Abcmaxx (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, in that case I'd say it's just a delete. It would be a legitimate fork if it passed WP:GNG, but as of now it doesn't. I'd keep it as a draft if I was you, it might be that a couple of sources with more coverage turn up, then you could just reinstate it. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just discovered this page despite its numerous mentions of me. Alliance Youth is the only party youth wing in NI without a seperate wikipedia page- Ulster Young Unionists Council. Ogra Shinn Fein & SDLP Youth all have one. With the anticipation that the mother party page will grow significantly due to electoral strength it is perhaps best they stay separate and this page is developed over time? Pattersonluke1 (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Luke, I created the page. I have no affiliation with any political group or even any ties to Northern Ireland, I merely created the page because the parent article was long, and like you said, most major parties' youth wings already have articles. The only reason you are mentioned is because these were the sources that I found and that is what they said. The issue here is that really there's very little out there describing what the youth wing does, I couldn't really find anything even on the parent party website and the only mentions were in the Belfast Telegraph, and even those weren't that detailed. If you know of credible independent sources that could help the article by all means please add it.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update Articles from Trouw, British Youth Council and Irish Times have been added. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The British Youth Council doesn't actually mention Alliance Youth, Irish Times just mentions that Patterson is a leader of it; all the Trouw article has to say about it is "Op basis van die frustratie werd hij anderhalf jaar geleden lid van de jeugdbeweging van Alliance." (not significant coverage) (t · c) buidhe 10:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that these are not significant coverage, you'd want a paragraph or two. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was not me who added them, the point was the article is being slowly but surely improved Abcmaxx (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back into the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland article. There's no significant coverage of a separate Alliance Youth organization that I could find. Some political parties on the island have standalone youth organizations, like Ógra Fianna Fáil, the Connolly Youth Movement, or the Young Unionists, but as far back as I can recall (which is to the early 1980s) Alliance never went past appointing some youth officers and having a couple of branches at the universities. Fiachra10003 (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the parent party, not independently notable. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect not implausible search term, but sourcing does not demonstrate notability separate from the larger party. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect I can't find anything published that gives it a standalone identity. Nothing. scope_creepTalk 10:32, 3 June 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 02:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ImmunityBio

ImmunityBio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable company as it is only known for potentially create the first COVID-19 vaccine. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not true. According to Reuters "Its clinical pipeline consists of approximately 26 actively recruiting clinical trials of which 17 are in Phase II or III development, across 13 indications in liquid and solid tumors, including bladder, pancreatic, and lung cancers, and infectious diseases, including SARS-CoV-2 and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)." [25] The company is notable. Graham Beards (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any links to references? We need references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability in order to Keep this article. HighKing++ 19:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Since this is a company the appropriate guidelines is WP:NCORP. I have to agree with the nom. We've some references that discusses the product (the vaccine and its technology or its "billionaire" owner) but the criteria dictates we require references that provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*. HighKing++ 16:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 20 May 2022 (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. ✗plicit 03:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's College, Enniskillen

St Joseph's College, Enniskillen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Hence, calling for an Afd discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this appears to be one of the better secondary schools in Northern Ireland. Manannan67 (talk) 06:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only comment since the last relist does not address any of Wikipedia's notability criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the school has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Manannan67 (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not give evidence why the school would be notable enough for inclusion. Everything is rather standard, with a principal doing nice things after his retirement. The Banner talk 16:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was principal for almost 25 years; presumably he had an effect on the place. Manannan67 (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be the case, but the school is not notable because what he did after retirement. The Banner talk 11:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has enough newspaper coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (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 @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West London Penguin Swimming and Water Polo Club

West London Penguin Swimming and Water Polo Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not finding significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of significant coverage to pass WP:GNG- being old doesn't make it automatically notable. [26] is just a short paragraph mentioning the club, and [27] just mentions a couple of events held there- neither are significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still adding sources including feature articles. It will take some time. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seven-time National Water Polo Championship title holders (well, which I've found so far), with at least three feature articles – [28] and [29] (both posted after Joseph2302's comment), plus the June 1952 cover story in The Swimming Times which unfortunately is not available online. Quite possible that there are other feature articles, but given all the additional media coverage historically for the 2–3 different incarnations of the club over more than a century (not to mention at least 23 GB Olympians affiliated with the club plus other internationals), it will take more time to go through it all. (The complicated current club name does not help.) But given what I've found to date, I am satisfied of the subject's notability, and also tried to add some inline citations, woefully lacking previously. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that from 16 May 2022‎ (UTC) to 18 May 2022 (UTC)‎, the article was significantly expanded, and many new sources were added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @AusLondonder: and @Joseph2302:, could you please take another look at the article? I have expanded it substantially, also with more substantial sources, and tried to demonstrate notability. There are still several additional articles I am chasing down from Swimming Times magazine which will require multiple trips to the library, but I think this is in much better shape now. Also happy to hear any feedback, suggestions, or questions on the Article Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has significant coverage on particular sources and passes the WP:GNG. Fade258 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage per Cielquiparle. Going from 1 reference to 84 is really impressive, nice expansion work! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the expansion justifies inclusion. All those Olympians! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Massively expanded since the nomination. [30], [31], [32] and [33] more than meet the standard of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject required by WP:ORGCRIT. RicDod (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2022 (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 02:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fore School of Management

AfDs for this article:
Fore School of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was closed as non-consensus in past. But I want to open it again for a proper discussion. It was suggested that this is a not-for-profit organisation and hence WP:CORPDEPTH is not applicable. But it is not true. Check Business Standard a very WP:RS that explains the situation [34]. NGO status is only a front and such private institutions are essentially profit making. There were two sources presented in last AFD. The telegraph source [35] is written by an alumni so can’t be WP:INDEPENDENT. The BS news [36] is a PTI feed. Also, this BS news link is not entirely focused on FORE. It uses the FORE incident as a premise to highlight the overall issue. Frankly, discussion about FORE in this is minimal. So I don’t think that is a significant source either. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 07:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete None of the coverage explains why this school is significant or notable. All run of the mill coverages. Doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:NCORP. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a for-profit company therefore WP:NCORP applies. None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:44, 25 May 2022 (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. ✗plicit 03:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faith in Place

AfDs for this article:
Faith in Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG, lack of reliable sources. Press release-like writing doesn't help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does it though? I don't see it. Between the dead links and its own website, there's not a lot of coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the nine citations, two are the organisation's own website, and four are dead links. That leaves a book and two Chicago Tribune articles which incidentally mention it, which I wouldn't really say is significant coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 16 May 2022 (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. While sourcing has been identified, there remain concerns about whether it's of the depth and refers to the subject. I don't see a third relist changing that. As this is not a BLP, and in fact not a person, sourcing concerns are less a reason to lean delete when consensus is thin. Star Mississippi 01:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany Philatelic Society

Germany Philatelic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability (as the concept is understood in en:Wikipedia) in this polite advertisement for a US organization for the study of German stamps.

Editors more energetic than I am may wish to look for examples of the same thing in Category:Philatelic organizations. (I've already noticed a number that look similar.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt @The Gnome:, that the Daily Herald reference is the weakest of the three I provided, and more of a mention - and I agree if that was the only one I provided, this would be a delete. But to say that The Capital article, that the subject is a stamp collector rather than the Society, seems exaggerated to me, given that the collector (Christopher Deterding) was the secretary-treasurer of the Germany Philatelic Society, and the 18-paragraph article, that's the centrepiece of the page, and continued on the following page, does discuss the Society itself; I'm not sure the concern about this article. While the one you cannot see, the 20-paragraph article in the Baltimore Sun is primarily about the organization and their 1965 convention. Can you see this clip? Nfitz (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild Keep I get more than a few hits in Linn's Stamp News about them, [37], with the newspaper article above, I think we have enough to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this reference as well is about something else and not our subject. It's a 2016 letter about an esoteric issue ("shades" on a stamp) published in Linn's Stamp News, a "newsmagazine for stamp collectors", in which it is mentioned, in passing, that the letter writer used to be a member of the philatelic society. Nothing more. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also found news coverage just by casually Googling it. It’s clearly a significant organization that meets general notability guidelines. I’m not sure why there is a sudden flood of calls to delete these stamp-related articles either. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2022 (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 03:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Press

Iran Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG. I couldn't find any reliable source talking about this news agency that's not related to the Iranian government. Ladsgroupoverleg 18:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is the publication a know outlet in Iran? On the page history I noticed that it was tagged with Possible self promotion in user or draftspace and I noticed the same thing especially on section Website and Social media. DownTownRich (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ladsgroup Please ping WikiProject Iran for their input. DownTownRich (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see enough notability KhinMoTi (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:56, 15 May 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 02:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Albania Friendship Association

Spain–Albania Friendship Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. I could find no sources for its English name. and gnews is only 1 hit for its Spanish name. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As noted by Soman, there is a bias in available English sources. I'd say that the page should be kept and improved, rather than deleted to be sucked into the black hole like all the other pages on here which are deleted, sometimes to never be seen again. Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small, defunct organization and so little is available that there is not anything to write about. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist had generated some participation so I’m giving it a 3rd
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve per Historyday01. I would like to see more about what the organization actually is or was if sources permit it. All it says right now is that it was an organization. But, what kind? Huggums537 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aside from the sources in the article, the NGO is covered in the eighth chapter of La Transición en directo: narrativas digitales de una historia reciente and Aragón Digital. Its activities (in particular its connections to the PCE (M-L)) seem to have significant coverage from multiple independent RS. Page needs to be improve to include more of this, but WP:DEL-CONTENT reminds us that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. And, since this is a non-commercial organization with activities that had international scope and were covered significantly by multiple independent RS, this article passes the relevant notability criteria of WP:NGO.— Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2022 (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.


Categories

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Organizations&oldid=1089140359"