Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Organizations deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studios Hergé

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

Appears to fail notability. While the namesake of the studios, Hergé, is undoubtedly notable, I don't see how these studios are. When I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, most of the sources were about Hergé and not the studios themselves, and/or do not have WP:SIGCOV of the studios. The article has been tagged as requiring additional sources since 2014, and most of the sourcing is unverifiable (the two book citations do not have a page number, or ISBN, making the claim violate WP:PAGENUM, and the other is an interview with a link to an insecure website). As an WP:ATD, I'd be fine with a redirect to the Hergé Foundation, which appears to be notable, since the Foundation is the successor to the studios. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Organizations, and Belgium. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources giving attention to the studios, their role in the creation of the later Tintin stories, the many famous artists who worked here (most famously Bob de Moor, Jacques Martin and Roger Leloup probably, what happened to it after Hergés death, ... Plenty of reliable and indepth information from even English-language sources like this book (note, one or two of the pages listed are about the older advertising Studio Hergé had on the thirties, not the actual Studios Hergé, but most are about this one), this book, this one, ... And plenty more in French language books like this one discussing the Studios at length. Fram (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I would object to a redirection, because while technically the Foundation is the successor, their role was completely different: the Studios were a creative groupn making new comics and new drawings (for ads and so on), while the Foundation was an exploitative group, reusing existing images for new uses (e.g. clothing) but not creating things. Fram (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated now. The French article also has some additional sources. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both Hergé, Son of Tintin and The Real Hergé: The Inspiration Behind Tintin (linked by Fram above) offer significant coverage that demonstrates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No notability problem whatsoever. Also the length of the article is sufficient. The article does need more inline references, already covered by a warning. Nomination is a clear NEXIST failure. AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SNOW apply. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The studios have received sufficient sig coverage throughout their run. X (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Reformed Church (North America)

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

Micro-denomination of six churches. All sources in article are primary sources direct to the subject's own webpage. WP:BEFORE search is tricky because of the common name (similarly named churches in Cuba, Africa, etc.) but turns up nothing to validate notability under WP:NORG Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm away from my copy of the Handbook of Denominations for a bit, but if someone else has access, indexing and description in there is generally sufficient to establish notability. Otherwise, I'd lean towards deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not listed in the 11th edition. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per research by Dclemens1971 determining that they were not listed in the most comprehensive compilation on the subject. Since the denomination is not listed there, GNG is the best standard to apply and the subject fails on that count. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Desertarun (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Entertainment

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

The article is a stub article that doesn't explain it's notability. As it stands, it appears to qualify for AfD. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It provides comprehensive information about a nonprofit organization seeking to do good work. Remma2 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of WP:USEFUL - just because you believe it provides comprehensive information without explaining why is not a valid Afd argument. If you want the article to be kept, you can demonstrate whether or not it passes notability by showing multiple independent, reliable sources, which the article in its current form does not have. Bandit Heeler (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep So far the references are all short announcements of events, plus some mentions in articles about other topics. I think this establishes the "newsworthy-ness" of the organization but only barely meets GNG. I looked for, but did not find, an indepth source about the organization. That is still needed. Lamona (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable organization with a lack of sourcing, apart from the usual promotional drivel to support its existence. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP/ORG. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Reformed Churches

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

Nominating following contested PROD. Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG.

Review of existing sources:

Link - Dead link; archived link here fails verification; it has not been updated since 2004 and confirms no other information about this church.
Link - Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
Link - Self-published source making a single passing reference to the subject that may verify existence but not notability.
Link - A single passing reference that may verify existence but not notability.
Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
, 10, 11. Link, Link, Link - Webpages of member congregations and thus primary sources
Link - Denomination's webpage and thus a primary source
Link - Presbytery meeting minutes; primary source.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, United States of America, New York, and Ohio. Skynxnex (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the excellent source analysis by the nom and the overall lack of sources available to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. The souce analysis supports the rationale. So many non RS with little to none GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency

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

Potentially un-notable, does not cite any sources (and has not since 2021), uses the wrong tone. Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but burn to the ground and rewrite. This group does seem to have been discussed widely back around 2004-05: [1], [2], [3] (note that the CNet article was long before Red Ventures turned the site into an AI-generated garbage heap). The coverage may not quite be "significant" in all cases, but is there. Regardless, the article is absolutely awful and is inexcusable in its current form. Also, note that more recently the abbreviation WWiSE has been used for an unrelated software package: [4]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have reworked it and added sources identified by WeirdNAnnoyed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead still isn't enough though. It just cuts straight to "Two industry "Pre-N" groups, TGnSync and the World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency (WWiSE), were formed". No identifying sentence. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechie, Do you have a suggested improvement? Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge it to the timeline in IEEE 802.11n-2009 @TheTechie? That seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep But absolutely crummy stub. Needs a total rewrite. X (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Political and Legal Education

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

according to https://web.archive.org/web/20061019054352/http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw8/eptw8l.html - the IPLE is a programme of study developed in New Jersey - not an organisation. The reference is dated 1995. This is the reference that I can find to IPLE. That suggests it was not widely used. On that basis, I suggest this page is deleted. Newhaven lad (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Education, United States of America, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013). Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works. Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services. Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4899-0390-7. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978). Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
United States. Office of Education (1974). Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [5], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and reluctant keep. While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information. If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information. My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rugby Football League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League XIII

AfDs for this article:

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

Page has a single reference which is an error 404, context is minimal, and the article is missing anything the team actually did, fails WP:GNG Mn1548 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Rugby league. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby Football League. Not enough content to justify a stand-alone article in its current state, but it's a plausible search term as the team played several fixtures in the previous century against national teams such as Australia and France. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete G12‎ All versions of the article are a copyright violation. Whpq (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management

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

Non-notable city-level government agency. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Let's try to make it better before deleting it. The OEM is a relatively new city agency and has had increased prominence recently due to events like the Delaware River chemical spill in 2023 and the 2023 wildfires, and other more localized emergencies. Unbandito (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to improvement but we do need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Philadelphia#Public_safety as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What content do you believe should be merged and where's the secondary source coverage to support it? Because at the moment the only source is a press release from the City of Philadelphia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY is definitely preferred and is required to establish notability. I am not arguing that this is an independently notable organization. WP:PRIMARY is acceptable for verification of a paragraph in a larger article. I would suggest merging this short article as a new section under Philadelphia#Public_safety. The content can then be improved in place by editors of the Philadelphia article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, I think it's completely undue at the Philadelphia article. Without secondary sources we have no reason to believe this is a noteworthy organisation. I also absolutely oppose inserting irrelevant and unacceptable content at another article with the expectation someone else will "improve" it at some unknown time. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you're free to disagree. However, I've proposed an WP:ATD (policy) and your response approaches WP:IDONTLIKEIT (argument to avoid). Your WP:UNDUE argument is also without merit as my proposed subsection would be smaller than the others existing there. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you think WP:ATD prohibits actually deleting an article on a non-notable topic under any circumstances, ever. Really struggling to see how what I said is an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are arguments to avoid at deletion discussions. I'm raising legitimate sourcing and quality content concerns which you have completely ignored. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ignoring article quality issues because WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason not to delete an entire article, not to insert new content in another article. I think this time you're really reaching trying to avoid deletion via ATD. AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing suitable to merge.
- The two prose sentences were copied verbatim from the referenced PDF (page 74/76) at the article's creation. As far as I can tell from Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#Pennsylvania and its ref, the PDF is copyrighted without a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Even if the copied text is not a copyright violation (WP:Copyright violations, policy), the official OEM site should be preferred as a source because it is current, not ten years out of date.
- {{Infobox government agency}} would be inappropriate detail in Philadelphia#Public safety.
- As AusLondonder commented above, a subsection for OEM of any length seems excessive, due to WP:WEIGHT (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, policy) considerations. The existing subsections have {{Main}} templates linking to Philadelphia Police Department and Philadelphia Fire Department, respectively. Although WP:Be bold is a guideline, I recommend proposing the addition at Talk:Philadelphia first.
Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy these arguments but if I did, I think they would argue for a redirect to Philadelphia. That way the contents would be available to Philadelphia editors in the redirect's history. ~Kvng (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always trying to scratch around for an "alternative" to deleting inappropriate content isn't necessary. Some content simply does not belong on Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Consortium of Intelligence Professionals

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG/WP:SIRS. No reliable sources in article and nothing in WP:LIBRARY. Jfire (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Israel National Convention

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

Absolutely fails GNG. Indeed, "The existence of the party is unclear, the only reference found is at.[1]". Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unable to find other sources for this party. Looking at the article, stating that EINC would have contested 1999 Lok Sabha election as Independent, this ought to be Rualpawla (see https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/jews-want-a-room-to-worship/cid/519407 ), who finished in fourth place with 4,508 votes (1.5%), which isn't too bad and there could presumably be more 1999 print material in local press that never made online. As of 1993 Rualpawla was the BJP state secretary [6]. In 2009 another name of party of Rualpawla appears, Israel National Front, [7], [8], [9]. Presumably this is either the same party or 2 different outfits organized by the same guy. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Republican movement (Ireland). Discussion on a better redirect target may proceed on the target's Talk page, and/or on Talk:Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group). Owen× ☎ 11:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican Movement

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

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.

Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) per above reasoning. // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arboricultural Association

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

Does not seem to be notable. A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website). XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep when you are the authoritative body in a niche sector there’s a bit of a notability conundrum - all the learned and professional papers are published by you, all the spokespeople are on your board, and pretty much everything connected with the topic is associated with you in some way. Nevertheless I find 1, multiple references in Horticulture Week, and they are the publishers of the scholarly journal of their discipline. Mccapra (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Software Industry Association

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

Appears to be defunct - no recent activity - can't find anything after 2007 - no notable references online. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Software, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search at the New York Secretary of State https://apps.dos.ny.gov/publicInquiry/ says that the association still exists. The archived versions of the association's website include pages that redirect to another group, New York Technology Council, Inc., which later merged into NY Tech Alliance, Inc. https://www.nytech.org/ Perhaps references exist for NY Tech Alliance and its events, including NY Tech Meetup. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non article. It says nothing and has no refs. 25 edits in 19 years, so could have been prodded away. Desertarun (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volunthai

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

I am struggling to find any recent information about Volunthai. Their website - volungthai.com - widely quoted in older online pages and previously in their wiki page (until I removed the reference) - points to a 'free hookup' site. The organisation appears to have always been very small. Can't find any associated organisations that I can link it with. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Internet, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It does not appear the organization exists anymore so if suitable sources exists, they will be hard to find. I searched ProQuest for the Washington Post and other sources mentioned in the article but those and others were all first hand accounts so WP:primary or brief mentions. The only source that seemed it might be secondary SIGCOV is ProQuest 308904716, an 26 August 2003 piece by The Bangkok Post titled "Building bridges" but only the abstract is available. S0091 (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, bar for coverage is clearly met with over 500 newspaper matches (see [10] and [11]). The component club has existed since 1926 and is home to Olympians and World Championships medallists. Also, when nominating an article, please add relevant WikiProjects to the talk page so that it will be properly categorized by the WP:ARTICLEALERTS bot. --Habst (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of trivial coverage and mentions in articles about related topics. Where is the significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first match from the London Evening Standard is about a murder in a park this group runs in? Do you honestly think these kind of mentions establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT? AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder, some of the sources definitely establish WP:ORGCRIT. I agree that the London Evening Standard murder coverage isn't significant, but that still leaves over 499 matches to analyze. For example, [12] [13] is more than a mention. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is less than a month old, needs improvement but meets WP:N Orange sticker (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. given improvements made to the article since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentecostal Mission

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

Fails WP:NORG - I could not find significant coverage of this church in reliable sources independent of the subject. HenryMP02 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, Sri Lanka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep am finding some reliable sources coverage such as this, I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep have added references and is a century old church founded in 1923 feel the resources will be offline. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I see where you are coming from. This is probably a case where the sources do exist, but may be difficult to find initially. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Hadlow Down. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadlow Down Parish Council

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England covering a village. Parish councils are rarely notable - there are more than 10,000 in England. No secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hadlow Down as an alternative to deletion given the content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hadlow Down as preferred WP:ATD and as suggested in my deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth merging. Desertarun (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Montserrat Championship. Closing as redirect to Montserrat Championship. History is preserved under redirect, which can be used for merge or expansion, if required. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Montserrat Police Force FC

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

Contested PROD. No real indication that this is a notable team. The League they played in was short lived and no longer active. The only found references was a listing of previous champions of the now defunct Montserrat Championship. I can't see this passing WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~List of football clubs in Montserrat~~ Montserrat Championship per nom. Fails GNG based on very limited SOGCOV. However, as a club who won six championships it its country's top flight league, it is a very reasonable search term, so I am strongly opposed to deletion. Frank Anchor 01:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: changed target as my originally proposed target is undergoing its own AFD. Frank Anchor 19:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Royal Montserrat Police Service. Again there was no thought to appropriate locations, this club is part of the police service which actually has a page on wikipedia about them. So why would anyone want to redirect anywhere else. If someone else says that the club is not mentioned there and so shouldn't be redirected, well it would be mentioned if merged! This should be pretty straight forward to fix. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am fine with this as a redirect/merge option as well, though I believe a football-specific target is most appropriate. Frank Anchor 13:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

I see no evidence that the team "is part of the police service" AusLondonder (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it does fail WP:SIGCOV standards, we cannot expect the Montserratian football system to receive meaningful, reliable coverage in mainstream media sources. This is historically the best football club in Montserrat. If we delete this article, we are jumping deeper and deeper into WP:BIAS by maintaining impossible standards for leagues (and players) from developing countries, effectively claiming that they are "unimportant." We can use the Swedish eighth division AfD as an example of this WP:BIAS. Anwegmann (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is about a specific team, not an entire league. The (defunct) league is covered at Montserrat Championship although it itself is unfortunately lacking sources. Montserrat is not a "developing country" it's a small British territory. I don't agree that very small teams without a single reliable source should be kept just because they're from an autonomous territory rather than say a small town of 4000 people. AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A British territory that is self-governing, more than 4,000 miles away from Great Britain, was nearly annihilated by a volcano 30 years ago, and has a GDP of less than half that of Great Britain. It is by all measures a representative of the global south and a small island developing state according to the UN. I appreciate the fact that the league article exists, but this team is as notable a team as this league has. Anwegmann (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in secondary sources. Per WP:NTEAM no sports team is exempt from notability requirements irrespective of the size of the territory they are from. A redirect to List of football clubs in Montserrat is inappropriate because that list is completely unsourced, and is at least six years out of date. It should also be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect – Per @Govvy. Svartner (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football clubs in Montserrat. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montserrat Championship - possible search term, and more useful target than the police. Giant Snowman 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montserrat Championship as preferred WP:ATD. ETA: I'm OK with keep too but haven't done my own notability assessment to support such a !vote. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Five-time winners of the Montserrat league, which is FIFA affiliated. I can't find much online about them but their championships were even reported (in list format) in the New York Times. It's probable there are offline sources written about them, and I don't see how deleting this improves the encyclopaedia - we just really need someone from Montserrat to help save it. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Connections

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

Promotional, unreferenced article on organisation that doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For the record this is not the same company as Global Connection which was previously deleted and salted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert for organisation that appears to fail WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced, promotional with no GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. With this much discussion and good faith input on both "sides", it's clear a consensus isn't going to emerge Star Mississippi 01:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Runners Association

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

Does not meet GNG/NCORP. The only source that is about WRA and in-depth is the BBC. Some of the sources make no mention of WRA and the others are brief mentions or based on what the organization/those affiliated say. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the previously cited lack of evidence demonstrating notability. Furthermore, the organisation appears to be using Wikipedia for advocacy as evidenced by the fact that the article was commissioned by them (see article talk page), clarifying edits have been reversed by a user with a registered COI based only on the claim that the organisation is “legitimate and registered”, and a link to the article is displayed prominently on their website’s home page. The line “Wikipedia is not… to be an adjunct web presence for an organization” on Wikipedia:Advocacy appears to be particularly relevant here. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, and Disicipline the editors who are COI-editing or removing tags inappropriately. The relevant policy here is not only WP:NCORP but also WP:NSPORT as a sports league/organization. Looking at this as neutrally as possible, the bar for coverage is met:

Jack Palfrey. "Is this the world's most exclusive travel club?". BBC News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
"Danish runner contesting Russ Cook's claim says he wants to get 'facts correct': Russ Cook's claim has been contested by the World Runners Association". The Independent. 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
"'Hardest Geezer' Russ Cook's Africa run contested by man who did it 14 years ago: Russ Cook, from Worthing, West Sussex, finished his gruelling 352-day run from South Africa to Tunisia on Sunday. But claims he is the first to run the length of Africa have been contested by the World Runners Association". Sky News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.

The fact that the organization seems to be using Wikipedia for promotion is unfortunate, but also must not be a reason for its deletion; as with all articles we need to look at the sources neutrally. --Habst (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst the Independent and Sky News (along with others published around April 8th) are based almost entirely what those affiliated with organization say so primary and is also churnalism. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091, The Independent and Sky News aren't churnalism outlets, they're both marked as "generally reliable" by CiteHighlighter and WP:RSP. They're also not the only sources, as you pointed out, there are many others from around that time period.

With great respect, I think this is a misapplication of WP:Primary – of course, news outlets will respond to and report quotes and statements from organization officials with analysis. That is journalism and secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. A primary source would be, for example, citing the World Runners Association Charter document (if one exists) or similar.

Thank you, --Habst (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great respect back atcha @Habst :) but reliability has nothing do with churnalism. Other than the BBC article, all they say about WRA other than they dispute Cook's claim is that the WRA is "a group made up of seven athletes who have successfully circumnavigated the world on foot" or similar. That's not in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091, thanks, I hear your concern so I tried to look for mentions before the April 8th event. I found many, see this web search:

"How many pairs of shoes does it take to run around the world?". Christian Science Monitor. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2024-04-12.
"À Rouen, la marathonienne de l'extrême boucle son Tour du monde". leparisien.fr (in French). 2022-09-19. Retrieved 2024-04-12.

I don't think that these are all churnalism, and as that's a subjective term it's difficult to prove one way or the other. Furthermore, I don't think that an article needs to specifically say "WRA is..." by name for portions of the article to contribute to notability; members or components of the group may be discussed as well. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Independent and Sky News articles the WRA in these examples is only really being mentioned in passing due to an association with a notable event which are the actual focus of the articles.

These all seem like examples of WP:INHERITORG

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it

Even the BBC article is in fact largely covering the pursuits of Olsen and the World Running Club - an entity which is not actually equivalent to WRA and was created almost a year before the WRA was founded. The WRA is only discussed over two sentences in the BBC article. That article is evidence for the notability of the WRC, not the WRA:

A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries

Perhaps as a compromise the WRA (or maybe more justifiably the World Running Club) could be merged with Olsen’s Wikipedia page until further evidence can be found for notability? Jaa.eem (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaa.eem, a common theme in this discussion is that WRA is mentioned in a wide variety of sources, but there are concerns about depth. Could we not apply the combining principle, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? This is stated in WP:BASIC for people but surely the principle applies just as well in this situation. For an organization that is so widely covered in so many WP:RSP reliable sources, the more I research this topic the more I think we would be making a mistake to delete that may be biased by the behavior of COI editors. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NORG explicitly states that an organisation must have multiple sources providing significant coverage. In fact, it also explicitly states that “A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant.”

WP:BASIC plainly cannot be applied as suggested. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...as the nom, I am not stuck on using the NCORP sourcing criteria given the crossover of org/sports/club but certainly WP:BASIC does not apply. I think GNG makes enough sense which requires WP:SIGCOV by multiple sources. Either way, I think the three of us need to step back so others can opine. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it should be controversial to utilise WP:NORG.

Scanning a bit deeper into the guidelines there is also a section specifics for NGOs which describes the WRA by their own admission: Wikipedia:NGO

This also states that multiple significant sources are required. Jaa.eem (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific aspect of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is relevant here? It’s very possible that I’ve missed it but those guidelines do not appear to provide any specific guidance for organisations claiming to be a governing body. The “basic criteria” appears to be in relation to sports people rather than organisations.

Furthermore, the Independent and Sky News articles you have linked provide only trivial coverage of the WRA itself - they are instead focussed on Russ Cook and comments made by individuals who are members of the WRA regarding Russ Cook. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaa.eem, given that the lede of NSPORT specifically mentions sports organizations, I think it is worth considering the policy as a whole. Because there isn't any specific section for a governing body, I would try to apply the "spirit" of WP:SPORTBASIC, even though it is about people, in lieu of more specific criteria. SPORTBASIC prong 5 says that if there is at least one non-database source, which we can agree that the BBC article is, then "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". I'm open to other ideas, but in my review of the material I am having a hard time being comfortable with a delete decision here in light of the breadth of coverage. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst WP:SPORTBASIC is specific to people. The section of NSPORT that covers organizations relevant to clubs, WP:NTEAM, states: This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.

Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa.

The BBC article describes WRA as a club, though they frame it as a travel club, so I think GNG is the relevant guideline. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this @Habst

My read of WP:SPORTBASIC is that it is intended to reduce the burden of evidence of notability for individual people which I think is justifiable - I would suggest that a sportsperson on the borderline of genuine notability (putting aside Wikipedia’s guidelines for a moment) is less likely to have comprehensive secondary sourcing available and thus reducing the burden of evidence makes sense. Conversely I would suggest that a genuinely notable “international governing body” would realistically have substantial coverage and thus reducing the burden of evidence purely by virtue of being related to sport cannot be justified.

Furthermore, as @S0091 says WP:NSPORT does provide guidance for clubs which I think is a much closer analogue to this example than an individual sports person. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaa.eem and @S0091, thanks for your thoughtful responses. The reason why I went to WP:NSPORT is because it's the most specific guideline I could find that includes the subject. If I were to describe WRA, I would say it's a "sports organization" and that phrase appears exactly in the lede of NSPORT but not any other guideline.

The WP:NTEAM section, on the other hand, doesn't seem to apply because I would struggle to call the WRA a team (it doesn't compete against other "teams", for example) nor is it a "club" in the European sense of the word intended there, a sports club.

I agree that "international governing body" is also a good descriptor, and I think that we should have high standards for notability when there's already a competing governing body so as not to place WP:UNDUE weight on one over the other. But in this case for the specific niche of the organization (running across continents), there doesn't seem to be any competing body setting standards, so I don't think we would be falling in to that trap. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that given the lack of specificity in WP:NSPORT it would be better to fall back to WP:NORG.

There is a substantial difference in the scope of a organisation which competes within a sport vs an “international governing body” of a sport. If a sports team should meet GNG surely a governing body shouldn’t be subject to more lax guidelines?

Also, with regards to the issue of undue weight I would suggest that a high standards of notability should be applied regardless. The status of “international governing body” effectively confers a level of ownership over a sport thus I think there should be a high level of confidence that such a status is widely agreed upon. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is discussed at length in numerous notable sources.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources discuss the subject at length beyond the previously cited BBC article? Jaa.eem (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even the BBC article doesn't discuss the WRA at length. It mentions it once in the context of the World Runners Club, a related but different organisation. Cortador (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is insufficient sourcing, no in-depth coverage, and the article created as an ad. Cortador (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed WP:ATD: Redirect and merge some details into List of pedestrian circumnavigators as a governing authority for the running circumnavigations. --Habst (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect, though I think "governing authority" might be a stretch but that's a content issue. Pinging others: @Jaa.eem, @Cortador, @Dexxtrall, what you think about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the World Runners Association aren't a governing authority, and would be reluctant about a merge if it winds up suggesting that they are. Redirect is fine though, and not entirely opposed to some content being merged if done appropriately ~~~ Dexxtrall (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to a redirect, though I agree about the content concerns. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Even with the paltry sources, there are just too many of them to ignore. [14] seems to be a RS, it talks about the one individual but always mentioning the WRA. There are about a dozen stories that discuss him and the WRA is mentioned, we should have enough for at least BASIC here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a brief paragraph in this German book [15], my German is rusty but a Google translate upload of the image talks about the club existing since 2014. I think we have just enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a single mention in a self-published book.

There doesn’t appear to be a single source providing significant coverage of the subject - they’re all largely passing mentions in articles about other notable events/people.

I think @Habst’s suggestion of a redirect is justified given the number of mentions but there’s not enough information from secondary sources to justify a full article. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b BASIC only applies to people, not entities or other topics. The source you linked to is not about WRA and is only a couple mentions. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barely at GNG then with minimal coverage, but enough of it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the German source, what else does is say about WRA? I only see a sentence. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of pedestrian circumnavigators: All the sources are about the "World Runners Association is contesting..." or "claiming..." something about Russ Cook. A BBC article writes about how the World Runners Club came to be, mentioning the World Runners Association in one paragraph. Is there anything specifically about the World Runners Association? I don't think so. A lack of significant coverage. Cooper (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:NOTINHERITED. Sourcing is entirely about members of this group. Not all registered charities are automatically notable, as there are thousands. It is a borderline stealing our bandwidth situation. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian, thanks, what do you think about the proposed alternative to deletion above? --Habst (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Habst, I do not oppose a redirect or very selective merge. Bearian (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LARP Alliance, Inc.

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

Almost entirely unreferenced time capsule from 2011. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LARP_Alliance * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as has no independent sources of the subject.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 GAME: Football without violence

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

Salt evasion of 1 GAME. Sources are all dead or passing mentions. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per nom. Giant Snowman 20:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. ArkHyena (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here at all. Agree, per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Warriors

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

No evidence of notability, no indepth references about the team, apparently unknown whether they even played a full season, and claims about becoming the Dayton Jets unsourced and unverifiable[16]. Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Ice hockey, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to the page. The claim of them becoming the Dayton Jets comes from the main page Continental Hockey League (1972–1986) though where that was sourced from, or if its even accurate, I don't know.PensRule11385 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The added references don't support the notability of the subject, and it is very hard even to argue in favor of notability if there aren't even sources verifying the team's record. This should be redirected to the main Continental league article. Ravenswing 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - team record was in the Decatur paper. Received decent amount of coverage in it. I’ve looked at it before, but can’t now as newspapers.com is temporarily inaccessible through the Wikipedia Library. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 22:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to shift my view to keeping if actual sources providing significant coverage are cited. Ravenswing 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While newspapers.com brings up many fairly WP:Routine mentions: ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), I think it is worth noting that these are all out of town newspapers, and unlikely to report anything in depth on a one year team that was a bottom dweller of the league. I am unable to find a good archive of The Courier (Findlay), which leads me to believe that WP:SIGCOV is likely to exist, but is not easily accessible. But obviously, that assertion on its own doesn't hold much weight, and I'm not willing to definitively say it does. IceBergYYC (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Asian American Professionals

AfDs for this article:

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

I agree with the previous nomination, which closed as "soft delete" and was contested. This organization does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Most sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not convey notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually every mention I can find is cursory or trivial, not substantial. I cannot find any qualifying sources to establish WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already subject to an AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources not from the organization itself are news coverage (probably failing WP:ROUTINE) about particular events held or awards given by it rather than the organization as a whole. Hatman31 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. with expansion of article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Britain Mules

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

Completely unsoured article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Connecticut. Let'srun (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55, where they have an entry, though that entry is also unsourced, and allow the article's recreation if the required sources are brought forward and a standalone article is justified. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BeanieFan11's excellent subsequent expansion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep. The area newspapers of the time gave extensive coverage to this team; which isn't all that surprising since the ABL was, it appears, among the largest professional basketball leagues of the time. See thousands of results from just 1933 to 1935 when they were active. It seems one could easily develop a WP:GA-class article or better if they put the work into it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @IgnatiusofLondon: Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is a great find, but I don't think the mere existence of sources, although it helps to establish notability, changes my !vote. Currently, New Britain Mules provides little information separate to the team's entry at American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55. I appreciate this argument runs against WP:TOOLITTLE/WP:RUBBISH, but per WP:NOPAGE:
  
  Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable.
  
  I'm not sure what benefit to understanding keeping the standalone article really provides, at this time, until an interested editor makes the effort to source or expand the article. So a redirect strikes me as an appropriate alternative to deletion for now. And of course, I am fully aware of the irony that this might well turn into one of those deletion discussions in which, for all the time we spend discussing whether to delete the article, we might as well have used that time to bring those sources forward that render the question moot. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @IgnatiusofLondon: One must also realize that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider ... [the] existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. NOPAGE is about whether it is best to cover a subject at another topic because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added; it is not meant to get rid of articles solely because they are short. Although, if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that. Is that what you'd like me to do? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see where WP:NOPAGE applies only because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added: I think it applies even when such content can be added. Nor do I have any issue with WP:NEXIST: topics are notable; articles aren't. The sources you've brought forward suggest that the notability hurdle is likely to be met, and a redirect isn't meant to preclude the article's creation (cf. Category:Redirects with possibilities). While I haven't looked at the sources, my !vote isn't about notability; rather, it's about how Wikipedia should organise its current encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Indeed, as WP:NOPAGE says: at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (my emphasis).
  
  Put it this way: if New Britain Mules were already a redirect, no sane editor would create an article by copying and pasting their entry at American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55 and call it a day. It would be unhelpful for readers wanting more information from the ABL article to find no further information at the standalone article. There's no point creating a standalone article unless it adds information beyond what is already offered in the target article. As this isn't the case, a redirect is appropriate until an editor produces the necessary sources to (i) demonstrate the topic's notability and (ii) expand Wikipedia's coverage of the team beyond what can reasonably be written in their entry at the ABL page.
  
  To offer a similar case, today, I BLAR'd Ildiger, because the article (old revision) had nothing to say about the subject beyond what was already said at Siege of Ariminum (538). But it's a redirect with possibilities, because an editor that can construct a fuller biographical article should feel encourgaed to do so.
  
  if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that → Yep, this is a fairly accurate summary of my position: redirect until it's sourced enough to show it meets GNG and goes beyond the ABL article. So, please, BeanieFan11, go for it, but only if this is genuinely interesting to you and how you wish to spend your wikiediting time before this AfD closes. As far as I'm concerned, there's no deadline, which is why this can close as Redirect and the article can be recreated from the page history whenever an editor is sufficiently interested to complete this task. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I put it this way: I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest. Redirects are virtually never expanded except on, e.g., modern topics who have since gained further notability. There's just not that many interested in historic redirect expansions, sadly. But of course I can expand this at some point soon if I am the only hope this article has for existence. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest. → Yes, I agree. But that also means you shouldn't feel burdened as the only hope this article has for existence. Nobody will miss this article if it is redirected: crucially, none of its content will be lost, because the ABL article already contains it; and the page history is always there anyway. You shouldn't feel any more obligated to expand it as a standalone article than as a redirect. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Nobody will miss this article – Actually, 318 people a year will miss it. I also am unaware of anyone outside of Wikipedia editors themselves who know how to use the page history function in that manner. I should feel much more obligated to expand it now as otherwise, without my intervention, there is no hope of the full story ever being developed here, because no one ever will if its a redirect, as you have agreed yourself. But I'm in the process of expanding it anyways so... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @IgnatiusofLondon: I performed a major expansion of the article. It now has a wealth of information included nowhere else, including that they had several Basketball Hall of Fame players, were considered (if briefly) as among the top teams in the U.S., and defeated the 1934 "world champions", the Original Celtics (one of the only franchises ever inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame), in a blowout. They seem even more notable than I initially thought. Your thoughts on keeping? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ultimately, no deletion tools are necessary. In the worst case scenario, this should be a redirect, but I think the article has potential. Zagalejo (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish this argument could be used to cut AfDs short. Unfortunately, I've never seen it accepted here. AfD wants to make all these decisions within these discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contesting Let'srun's PROD, your edit summary was: consider merge or redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955) as preferred WP:ATD. Not quite a trouting for Let'srun, but I think that was a wise recommendation not to bring the article to AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mask Bloc

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

I don't believe these groups meet the notability criteria for organisations, there is limited in-depth coverage of the phenomena. This is too soon for this to be an article, and borderline promotional of the advocacy group. JeffUK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and COVID-19. JeffUK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a group its more like an organizing tactic similar to Black Blocs and I don't see how its too soon as the covid pandemic is an ongoing situation and had an article as soon as it was named. The article is important information for an ongoing pandemic I don't see why it would be deleted. Wikibobdobbs (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the suggestion of removing this article, and I'm confused as to how it can be justified, given that the movement is very much an active (and growing) one. I'm currently beginning research on this specific form of mutual aid as part of my postgraduate dissertation, and while the article needs to be cleaned up for consistent formatting, etc., there is no reason (other than a "political" objection to masking) to remove this at present, even if the information is under-reported. This is "grey literature," essentially. MAINShorebird (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cited sources are all passing mentions and I couldn't find anything on Google that was reliable and featured sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This was already deleted by the time I made this reply. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. It appears the nominator now also agrees the given sources are enough to support notability. Whether a Baltimorean with an interest in choir will expand the article or not is unfortunately beyond the remit of AfD. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Choral Arts Society

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

No refs on the page for many years. I see some mentions and directories and possibly even programmes for performances, but I'm not seeing the level of substantial independent reliable sourcing needed to meet the inclusion criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Maryland. JMWt (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of WP:SIGCOV [24] - article needs work but that's not grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok great, please add the strongest sources to the page that show the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you do it instead. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The news sources you've provided are mostly not accessible to me in my country. But you are right that these appear to be SIGCOV looking at the titles of the news articles, but it is a shame nobody has improved it since 2009. JMWt (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't have a subscription to Baltimore newspapers. This is neither here nor there for whether the article should be deleted. Hopefully an editor from Baltimore will see this conversation and do it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough independent reviews to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmericaSpeaks

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

Article with a promotional history; this version started out simply as a copy of a promotional version deleted as spam, and it hasn't gotten any better. There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and 10YT. By the way, a related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_Speaks Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails WP:NCORP's inclusion criteria. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant standard is WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Sal2100 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:HEY. The article about this nonpartisan non-profit organization has now gone through a complete WP:TNT, with all the promotional, unsourced content removed. (Drmies and Graywalls rightly got the ball rolling with removing content that should have been removed years ago.) There are numerous articles covering AmericaSpeaks in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journal articles and books, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter, "Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind, a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter "A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cielquiparle and WP:HEY. With recent modifications, the article now passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Stowmarket#Governance as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stowmarket Town Council

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

No secondary sources. Lowest-tier local government authority in England, parish councils are rarely notable enough for an article. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some secondary sources though I'm not sure if they are enough to qualify. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing particuarly worth saying about this council. There doesn't seem to be much information about the award they recieved and it seems similar to those run-of-the-mill industry awards that aren't generally considered notable or pointing towards notability. ---- D'n'B-t -- 08:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not notable if could be merged with Stowmarket. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A merge would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to South African wireless community networks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoria Wireless Users Group

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

I was unable to find any mention of this organization anywhere, hence seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. Virtually all the news about this organization comes from 'mybroadband.co.za', a rather niche trade publication focused on broadband which does not appear in the searches. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Africa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South African wireless community networks as ATD. There is a plausible claim of notability in the article but I can’t find sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South African wireless community networks: Per ATD. Can be expanded in future if needed from the history preserved under redirect. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ and no input for four weeks Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde

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

No secondary sourcing--and none that I can't find. Google News offers nothing but Facebook and Wikipedia (GNews, how you have fallen), but there's nothing else I can find, not in the regular search and not in books. It's unfortunate but not all scouting organizations are notable per WP:NCORP. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Secondary sources exist (eg [25], [26], [27]), but both my Dutch and my Papiamento skills aren't good enough to include them. The little I understand suggests at least national notability. --jergen (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Those prove that the organization exists--these are run of the mill newsy notes on a social club one would expect in a local publication/website. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Aruba is a really small nation with less than 200,000 inhabitants so "local publication" equals "nationwide publication". In my eyes both criteria of WP:NGO are met. Keep. --jergen (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, this meets all the requirements of the kind of local reporting we usually discredit: a totally mundane event written up in highly promotional language--and that's the best of the three sources. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Westminster International University in Tashkent. Consensus is the rewrite fixed the content issues, but not the notability ones. Star Mississippi 01:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Academy of London

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

Contested PROD for not being uncontroversial (though not by me). Appears to be original research, possible redirect to Joseph Mifsud? IgelRM (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the article provide SIGCOV. They are primary or press releases with no depth of coverage (Azerbaijan, check if recognized, GCU, opening of new), unreliable forums (houzz, diplomacy.edu), or not even mentioned (US News, Guardian). Nothing better found in my searching. We don't have to dig into the controversy or decide on its legitimacy to determine that it's not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree none of the current sources provide RS SIGCOV. I found this article in the Stirling Uni student newspaper [28] and this in the BBC [29]. The first may not be reliable and the latter might not be enough SIGCOV. There is this Guardian article which arguably is RS SIGCOV [30]. In any case all the coverage seems to be in connection with Joseph Mifsud. The Guardian article also makes clear the LAD no longer exists as does the Brig piece. In that context, it seems most sensible to me to keep it as a redirect to Joseph Mifsud. Perhaps to a section on the LAD in that article? I'd be happy to create it. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems ill advised since there is no mention of Joseph Mifsud in Diplomatic Academy of London and no mention of Diplomatic Academy of London in Joseph Mifsud. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as WP:OR and per WP:TNT. The current article reads like an attack piece, and is full of errors which is why it should be deleted and not kept. The claims that these programs are not accredited is false. These are university departments inside respected research universities. There are several different university programs being confused, they are not the same program but multiple different university departments, many of them founded by the same academic, Nabil Ayad, who seems to have made a career setting up departments for UK research universities wanting to take in foreign students from outside the UK. The history here seems to have cobbled together these different non-affiliated programs (each university's department is separate to its own school) through a bunch of original research and spurious claims that are not cited to a reliable secondary sources. The London Academy of Diplomacy was a diplomatic studies department at the University of East Anglia for foreign students studying at the university and its diplomas are awarded through that institution. It closed in 2016.

As for the Diplomatic Academy of London. It is a respectable institution/department that was for a long time housed at the University of Westminster (and still is sort of). It's listed as graduate diplomatic studies program at the University of Westminster in Bulletin - Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities. 1992. p. 109., "Overseas". Pacific Research: A Periodical of the Peace Research Centre. 5–6. Australian National University: 41. 1992. It was absorbed into the Westminster International University in Tashkent which is part of the University of Westminster. (see Can the Prizes Still Glitter?: The Future of British Universitites in a Changing World. University of Buckingham Press. 2007. p. 194. ISBN 9780955464201. which lists the school as part of the Westminster International University in Tashkent in 2007.) I can't find a source, but I would imagine that it was absorbed into that school in 2002 when Westminster restructured it diplomatic/international studies programs when the Westminster International University in Tashkent was founded. As far as I can tell the school is still a department inside the WIUT and offers its courses to foreign students in London and is accredited as part of the WIUT through which its students receive both graduate and post-graduate degrees from the WIUT.

I found quite a lot of citations to publications by this organization, and coverage of some of their symposiums in reliable academic journals dating back as far is the mid 1990s. For example their symposium The Information Explosion : A Challenge for Diplomacy had coverage in The World Today,Volume 53, Issues 1-12 - page 158-159. The organization is listed as a reliable academic publisher in Behle, Sabine, ed. (1994). Publishers' International ISBN Directory/International ISBN Agency, Volume 1. K.G. Saur. p. 708. There's WP:SIGCOV in Demut, Andreas (ed.). Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen nach dem Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs?: Vorträge und Aufsätze der Konferenz über Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen als Folge der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Veränderungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Lit Verlag. p. 254-255. ISBN 9783825822224. The organization was also a partner with the United Nations for an Ocotber 25, 2002 symposium entitle The UN and the Media in War and Peace (see Ahmar, Moonis (ed.). Different Perceptions on Conflict Resolution Need for an Alternate Approach. Program on Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi. p. 255. There's a lot more out there. All of this to say, we could have an article, but it's definitely not this article which is both factually wrong and a horribly unethical attack page.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep, although I am not typically a big fan of articles on individual university departments. I re-wrote the article to remove the OR. It's a stub. I also knocked off a stub on London Academy of Diplomacy. Pinging IgelRM, David Eppstein, The Herald, the article is vastly different now. 4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely rewritten about a different topic now (good work), although I am not certain of this departments notability. Though the AFD process is a bit of mess now, maybe the previous version should still be deleted. IgelRM (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM It's a small enough article that we could always redirect and merge to Westminster International University in Tashkent per WP:ATD. It would be fine as a subsection of that article.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/merge or outright delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the rewritten article to Westminster International University in Tashkent as suggested above. Thanks to 4meter4 for the rewrite. Jfire (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still fairly young, but based on this page they have little to show for. The Banner talk 18:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have sufficient notability to meet the WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Westminster International University in Tashkent: we have more than enough sources to establish verifiability, and do not need independent notability for a section in the target. The Delete !votes haven't presented any valid reason why the page shouldn't be allowed to stay as a redirect to a valid article. Owen× ☎ 20:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Somalia. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosaso FC

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

Since, per WP:NTEAM, teams and clubs have to demonstrate WP:GNG for a standalone article, then this fails WP:GNG as there's nothing to establish notability. Pieces from Hoorse Media ([31], [32]) can not be considered independent as they sponsor the club. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Somalia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does seem slightly odd to discount sources from what appears to be a reliable media source for the region because they support the club given the region, but there's other sources out there which can be used to improve the article such as [33] and mentions in [34] and [35]. Another problem here is most of this part of the world happens on Facebook. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bosaso FC is an existing local sports club in Somalia with sponsorship of Horseed Media Group. Page deserves not to delate as editor from Somalia club is existing Muscab30 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me recommend we should not delete this page. Club is an existing local sport club in Somalia. Muscab30 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There are reliable sources here, as sponsorships don't detract from journalistic independence. Indeed, sponsorship adds to the team's notability. The team is simply not mainstream or well covered. This feels like a further example of unconscious WP:BIAS discounting teams, players, etc. from places like Somalia. Anwegmann (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per discussion the source of the reference used other reliable sources from different pages. Muscab30 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the football club exists, but the only (single) news source about the club is by the news outlet that sponsors the club. WP:GNG needs multiple, independent reliable sources that are more than just passing mentions (source 4 doesn't mention the club at all). Sionk (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is not the only single news source there is different source used check the page or are related and are original language is Somali language since the team is in SOMALIA Muscab30 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answer for the sorce 4 the source four is related tgis topic is about Puntland the state responsible the team area is the federal member state of Somalia responsible managing snd regulating football in the area of Bosaso FC. Bosaso FC operates under Puntland. Muscab30 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect - source 4 clearly states Bosaso FC is owned by Bosaso City- the commercial town of Puntland in Bari region. There's enough here for a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Somalia per nom. Fails GNG due to limited independent SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 04:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 13:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: : Sorry, after checking the good sources, it may be eligible for deletion or redirectionGQO (talk) 9:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to List of football clubs in Somalia per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV as the news coverage is from a media outlet that sponsors the club, which clearly makes the coverage not independent.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis (it need not be formal) would be helpful. Also, User:Muscab30, please strike one of your bolded "votes" as I'm not sure which one reflects your current opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are four sources in the article - one from the UN, which isn't great; one from Puntlandes, which is coverage of the league, but also includes a few sentences specifically on the club which can be used to expand the article, and is similar the type of coverage I look for when creating articles on clubs; a DW article which doesn't specifically mention the club; and a cable TV interview on Youtube, which would generally be considered unreliable but is clearly a cable TV network putting up one of their broadcasts. In the AfD, there are two good articles from the newspaper which sponsors the team which don't appear to be promotional in any way; a Warsom article about a friendly Bosaso played in that the president of Puntland attended, which is excellent coverage; a reference in a scholarly article which can be used in the article to describe who owns the team, but is not GNG-qualifying; and a fixture list for the league which features an alternate spelling of the team. Between the sponsoring newspaper, the Puntlandes article, and the Warsom article, it's a pass in my opinion, but if we're going to be strict and say that the sponsoring newspaper doesn't count, it becomes more marginal. As I've already noted, most of the media coverage for Puntland actually happens on Facebook, so if we're going to go letter of the law GNG it's more likely to be redirected, but if we go spirit of GNG and say that we need reliable sources which show that the club has been written about by secondary sources, it's a keep. I'm still strongly advocating for this to be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: most of news in Somalia are in Facebook so it's very limited to find websites written about such areas, so I believe it's unfair to mark this article "deletion" dealing contextual argument will improve diverse approach of dealing such situations. The only thing that you believed in horseedmedia media is the sponsor of the this club and can't be referred to source, first Horseed Media is well-known and respected Media station in Somalia with reliable information in Somalia context, secondly, we used other source to follow your directives and rules mentioned above as editor, contributor and creator of this article I believe it's completely appropriate rules and regulations of Wikipedia and should be accepted. Muscab30 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Longer note below, it broke the template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin note, I had closed this as The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Somalia as a viable ATD. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient independence. This isn't as close as it looks with a keep noting the team is neither mainstream nor well covered, which negates the !vote which I still believe to be a correct read. @SportingFlyer: raised some good points at my Talk about the points they'd raised above and I offered to relist in lieu of DRV. Star Mississippi 13:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the new close: At a glance, views seem to be all over the place. However, with only two keep !votes, consensus is clearly against keeping this article. That leaves delete or redirect, slightly favoring redirect. When in doubt between those two, it seems prudent to go with the least destructive option. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Open Book Collective

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

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, fails WP:NGO. I cannot find any sourcing that is fully independent of the organizaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OBC is a full UK-registered Charity, see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5219053 Flavoursofopen (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen That does not prove notability Mach61 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, apologies, I misunderstood - there are indeed more independent sources, e.g.
https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2023/11/open-book-collective-collective-path-toward-an-open-and-sustainable-monograph-future/

https://subscriptionsmanager.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/2840

Flavoursofopen (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen The University of California webpage was written by a Chair for the OBC, so it isn't independent. Webpage #2 is literally selling a subscription to the OBC. Mach61 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mach61, thanks for this - and apologies again, but your points for me quickly raise another, more substantial issue - namely what is actually meant by "independence" here ... i.e. how far removed from an institution do you have to be to count as "independent"?

Would e.g. this source [1](https://open-access.network/services/news/artikel/finanzielle-unterstuetzung-fuer-open-access-buecher) count as "independent"? Would official statements of the OBC's international funders or evolving network of universities, infrastructures, etc - all of thems independent, well-recognised entities - suffice, would research articles such as [2](https://journal.dbs.ie/index.php/dbs/article/view/119/65), mentioning the OBC? Like, what counts as enough?

As an aside, for me it's quite frustrating that a not-for-profit charity such as the Open Book Collective that is clearly working to do the same for OA books as Wikipedia does for encyclopedic knowledge - to remove barriers to access to knowledge overall - and with similar open mission & values is being sidelined by such artifically-erected barriers ... and I see the argument for due process etc. but again, when is enough? Flavoursofopen (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior "no consensus" closure was vacated per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 28. This can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I could not find anything beyond the resources cited here which are authored by persons from the project's institutions (well, other than the UK gov entry and that is a factual register including all NGOs). These sources could be included to support facts, but they do not support notability. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2024 (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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Aiyar

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Organizations, Delhi, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's the head of Centre for Policy Research; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF.— Moriwen (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No longer the head. Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [36]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of refs for this. Desertarun (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein national badminton team

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

No evidence of notability, one local article in Liechtenstein, otherwise either passing mentions (e.g. the Faroese articles just state that their team beat Liechtenstein, it doesn't give any actual attention to the Liechtenstein team), databases, or non-independent sources (organizers and the like). Fram (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Badminton, and Liechtenstein. Fram (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevant as national badminton team, at least same notability as the mentioned teams under participants in Football at the 2023 Island Games. National badminton championships are held in Liechtenstein since 1986, Badminton Europe member since 1993. Team mentions [37], [38], [39], [40]. --Florentyna (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability can be assumed as the national team. Sourcing is poor, but does not warrant deletion. I can work on addressing more odious elements in the coming days.TheBritinator (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's questionable whether "national team notability can be assumed" in every existing sport. It depends on the sport, and may also depend on the country (if the sport in question receives coverage there). Florentyna partially argues with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and not all of the coverage is significant or independent. Geschichte (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NTEAM is specifically clear that no sports team has "assumed notability": "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline." None of the sources identified above by Florentyna are secondary. Without evidence of notability this fails WP:GNG. I have had a brief look for sources but have not located significant secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No improvements in article since its nomination. Can we see an evaluation of sources brough to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per NTEAM and AusLondoner Wolfson5 (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTEAM. Notability must not be assumed. Evidence of notability for this specific team is not clear or reliably sourced. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak merge into Liechtenstein § Sports, adding any above-decent sources while we're at it. (The sport we're discussing here reminds me of an English-dubbed Shimajiro episode I came across months back--but that's besides the point here. [Suffice to say I'm one of this anime's few fans in the West.]) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mentoring Partnership of Southwestern Pennsylvania

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of significant coverage discussing the organization. Let'srun (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deprod comment - Consider merge or redirect to MENTOR. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons cited by nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Desertarun (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Sun Life Financial#India. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sun Life Financial#India Most of the article here is superlative and promotional filler, while the section in Sun Life about it is more focused and neutral. Nate • (chatter) 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have made substantial improvements and added better sources and information. Aditya Birla Sun Life is the second-biggest insurance company in the country and was the first to introduce the ULIP plan. It won many awards and gets talked about in the media a lot. I have also added some controversies for neutrality. Its notable and meets NCORP.ChaiSK (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any improvements in this article at all; it remains full of pointless filler about a merger that never happened or came close to closing (and doesn't speak anything about how Sun Life itself thought about the idea), and there remains only one blue link in the entire body of the article below the lede, leaving the reader completely lost and confused about what on earth is being talked about here (what is ULIP?), a complete dismissal of their Internet presence (who goes to a branch to buy insurance? Branch count is nigh pointless these days), and the usual financial figures that are already out of date and I can easily ascertain will not be updated further. And it also remains an orphan article with no incoming links. Nate • (chatter) 21:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not intended for cleanup. If the financial figures are outdated or the article lacks Wikilinks, or if the article is orphaned because it is not linked to any other Wikipedia page, all these issues can be easily addressed through discussion on the article's talk page or by using various templates to highlight these issues. We can either resolve these issues ourselves or leave them to others. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Regarding financials, there are numerous articles available on the internet about financials, and they can be easily updated or expanded upon. As you mentioned, "What is ULIP," ULIP stands for Unit-Linked Insurance Plan, which is an insurance product that offers both insurance and investment benefits, and it is already Wikilinked. Anyone can click on this blue link to learn more about it. These issues can be resolved quite easily, and they should not be grounds for merging the article with another Wikipedia article.ChaiSK (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason is promotion and incorrect talk. Clear. GQO (talk) 6:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

GQO , this comment makes no sense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY. It is among the top insurance companies listed in the NIFTY 50 index. Being part of NIFTY 50 itself is more than enough to justify notability.--Abualsarmad (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect validation. The company is not included in any Indian stock exchange (BSE or NSE); being part of the NIFTY 50 is highly unlikely. This vote could be a last-minute effort to rescue this article from deletion. TCBT1CSI (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Abualsarmad & WP:HEY, the sources added to the article demonstrate notability. Nitish shetty (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A vote in quick succession, attempting to defend/justify the previous 'keep' vote which came with an improper validation; without conducting own independent research to confirm that the company is genuinely not listed on any Indian stock exchange (failing WP:LISTED) and therefore not included in the NIFTY 50. Also, the recent revisions made by the article's creator are merely superficial changes and do not meet the standards outlined in WP:HEY. TCBT1CSI (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't inspire confidence in the article's notability when keep advocates just... make things up? The company is not in the NIFTY 50, as can very easily be checked. Not sure what Abualsarmad was thinking here? – Teratix ₵ 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Sun Life Financial#India seems like the sensible option as WP:ATD, none of the references in the article meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sun Life Financial#India. The closer needs to know whether it is merge or redirect. I think the first two paragraphs of the history could be merged with the target without unbalancing the target and without getting too specific. This is a merge then. The merge edsum in page history will also act as a flag to available page history should the target be expanded in the future. It is not notable for an article of its own as we do not have sufficient sources or evidence of notability under NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Organizations deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories