Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Organizations deletion

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

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

Despite its creation by a blocked sockpuppet, specifically User:Bhusungk, this political party was founded this year and has not yet participated in any elections. The article currently fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As a newly established regional political organization, it has not made notable contributions to regional or national political landscapes. Most sources are centered on initial news coverage reporting the party’s formation by a well-known actor, lacking substantial analysis or depth regarding the party’s policies, actions, or influence. There is no indication that the party has engaged in any significant political activities or initiatives that would establish its importance. Additionally, no reliable sources provide evidence of public or political recognition or electoral impact that would qualify it as a noteworthy political entity.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Tamil Nadu. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many sockpuppets of the original creator edited the article? And if I read the article correctly, a predecessor did contest elections. but yes, I have a promo-concern. The Banner talk 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I don’t have specific information regarding sockpuppets. The predecessor, however, was primarily a fan club rather than a political party. If the fan club meets notability standards, it might warrant a separate article. The current political entity does not appear notable at this time, which I interpret as aligning with WP:TOOSOON.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of sources do you think would help Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam pass WP:GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique

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

This article is predicated on misunderstanding a single gov.uk webpage. The claimed customs union does not exist and thus has no sources. Much of the page is false, and what is true is in no way notable. It would be equivalent to having a page titled "Canada and Mexico" because they are both parties to NAFTA. Peetel (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above, this appears to be a legal term used by the British government for a trade agreement and appears to have no other use or purpose. Not seeing independent RS showing that this has notability outside of the British trade agreement. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC Northern Ireland

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

I could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons. Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Northern Ireland, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfordshire Historic Churches Trust

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

Could not find third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. Of the 2 sources, first one is its own website, the other is dead. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – added information and references for notability. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Mental Health Association

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

Marked for notability concerns since December 2022. I could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, China, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything for this organization. The sourcing used is primary, so I'm not sure we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macintyre Art Advisory

AfDs for this article:

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

Created by a single edit editor. Last AfD was withdrawn for technical reasons for being nominated by a sock. This fails WP:ORG and GNG and has been marked for notability concerns for 9 years. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find coverage of this organization. This is about all I can pull up [1], I don't think that's enough. The one source in the article now isn't enough either. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HK Alfa

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

Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any significant coverage anywhere with the exception of database websites. Also, the club existed only for 4 years. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough coverage and GNG is not met in any case. --Tone 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Team played in the top-level Slovenian league, which receives significant coverage in the national media. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And? Provide that "significant coverage" that covers HK Alfa then, and as you have been told at some other AfDs, playing in a league does NOT guarantee notability anymore since the notability system was overhauled in 2022, they simply need to pass WP:GNG regardless of which league they play in. If the league receives "significant coverage", it would only make the league notable, and not all of its clubs, especially not some random amateur clubs that only existed for 4 seasons. And there is no second division anyway, so "top-level" doesn't mean much, they didn't need to climb to this division, Slovenian ice hockey only has like 6 teams, of which only 2-3 are professional while other are "hobby clubs", including Alfa. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Ukrainian Genealogy Group

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

No refs on the page for a very long time. I see some passing references to the existence of the group but not substantial coverage in RS. JMWt (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Ukraine, and Canada. JMWt (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the article have notability and importance? Are the references you have found.

1. Independent

2. Notable

3. Secondary

4. Strictly independent of the subject? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 16:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not substantial - they are passing mentions. As I said. JMWt (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, and there really isn't any substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the group in reliable sources to salvage this with — I've been able to find primary sources and glancing namechecks of the fact that this group exists, but absolutely nothing where the group itself is the subject of coverage and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Cities of Peace

AfDs for this article:

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted article WP:REFBOMBED with passing mentions and press releases of individual cities becoming international cities for peace, which don't really provide significant coverage of the organization as a whole. Even the one "publication reference" that I was able to access through The Wikipedia Library doesn't provide anything close to significant coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pppery, for the feedback. I understand the concerns about notability and the type of references currently used. I am working to find more sources that offer comprehensive coverage of International Cities of Peace as an organization rather than passing mentions of individual cities joining the network.

I believe International Cities of Peace has demonstrated significant global impact as it has been active in hundreds of cities worldwide, promoting peace initiatives and even achieving Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I’ll focus on finding additional independent, reliable sources that address this organizational reach.

Thank you again for your guidance, and I’m open to any further suggestions on how to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. WAASI TECH (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above reply came up as 76% AI-written on gptzero.me. Left guide (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will monitor and help with this. I have read the article and find the organization has merit. Thanks to Wassi Tech and Pppery for the discussion. I will check to see if guidelines are followed. Be back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated three strategies for keeping this article:

1. I am researching a broader sourcing of references for the organization. To date, as noted in the Article, coverage of International Cities of Peace is included in many global media sources, including the BBC, The China Daily, the Westerly Sun, Ashland, Oregon News, Belfast Live, Irish Central, iTV, New Horizon, and many others; Publication mentions: Weifang Openings, Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict, International Peaceful Cities Series. What is included has value but more will be needed.

2. Will help edit the article for complete adherence to Wikipedia protocols. Suggestions are welcomed from other editors. This will, hopefully, be completed over the next week.

3. I will investigate the overall vision, mission, and goals of the organization. This NGO is in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC and has representation at the United Nations in both New York and Geneva. The intent of the organization is to create value at the grassroots level. The organization is fifteen years old and has shown growth. Clarity is needed but I'm willing to put in time to make the Article meet Wikipedia standards.

This will take some time. I hope we editors can have a bit of patience before deleting because the above strategies, hopefully, will clarify and add value. Rather than delete, improve. Back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessArt

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

I stand by my original PROD reason, which was that it seems unlikely there will be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG.

The Guardian article cited is written by Briggs and seems to be more about her opinions on art than the organisation itself. All the other coverage I've been able to find such as this 2002 article also from the Guardian barely goes beyond mentioning the name.

Deprodded with the reason charity affects education and culture for millions of young people nationally, which is a valid CCS preventing A7, but WP:NONPROFIT are still required to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which I have not been able to find. There are some brief mentions in trade journals, but they rarely go beyond just a name check. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find scattered mentions of this charity [2], [3] and [4]. Trivial mentions, not enough to build an article. Barely much more found in the refs now used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: With an active fee-paying membership of 22,000 schools (together educating the majority of children in the UK), and with each school providing coverage of the charity's educational materials and each referring to the charity's guidelines when shaping their curriculums... coverage by the schools should be considered as significant, independent and reliable. ArtDataArt (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but no indication the issues raised at the prior AfDs have been addressed. A search is hard due to the name, but no indication of N:CORP. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure why this page is nominated, when there are ample amount of third-party secondary sources cited for largest broker in India (Groww). Google search results easily show numerous articles with deep-dive into this unicorn's background, starting from getting funding form Y Combinator to moving past Zerodha and then to be awarded as 'Forbes India Leadership Award 2024' for Promising Startup.--Curvasingh (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to me leaving a !vote, I am hoping you can point out the WP:THREE you feel meet the guidelines outlined in WP:ORGCRIT? I have started going through the references but there is a lot of churnalism and routine announcements so hoping as the creator you can point me in the right direction. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many reliable sources but I will point out these sources to claim notability:

--Curvasingh (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement

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

Article about a very small political party that claims a few thousand members and has failed to get anyone elected to anything, securing 0.08% of the vote. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Incomplete text, add more headlines, history, steps of the movement, UzbukUdash (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in draftifying an article on a non-notable topic, because no amount of editing will make it ready for mainspace. The issue isn’t the lack of headlines or detail. Quite the reverse - as it stands there is a lot of detail about a non-notable topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Navigation on Essequibo and adjacent Rivers

AfDs for this article:

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

Possible copyright infringement. The Dutch Wikipedia article was deleted because it was not clear where and when the text was first published and by whom; copyright infringement could not be ruled out. Same applies here; the first version of the english-language text is a straightforward translation from a Dutch original, possibly written by the same author of the Wikipedia articles, that appears to have been published in 2021 by the Bibliotheek van Zeeland. It has to be assumed that the Bibliotheek van Zeeland is the owner of the copyright. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Netherlands. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deletion discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. And paragraph 3 and 4 of this publication, is the original version. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the copyright issues can be resolved and the page rewritten. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will trust Ruud's research on the copyrights. Thank you for investing time in this, Ruud! No objection to draftification, if someone wants to work on this. I have basically moved texts around so did not mitigate any copyvio issues. Only structural ones. gidonb (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, @Gidonb! I have mixed feelings about this. The topic of this article, SvE for short, is notable. Thanks to your effort to write a lead section, it survived the first AfD discussion. I am sure that researchers on slave trade would be very interested to know more about this trading company, that was small and short-lived, but certainly relevant. What needs to be clarified is if this article, published by Zeeland Library, is copyright protected. The third and fourth paragraphs, as well as the literature and references, are identical to the first version of this WP article on the SvE. If I understand the disclaimer correctly, the text is not intended for commercial use and the library does not take responsibility for improper use. In my view, the text cannot be published as is on Wikipedia. The Encyclopedie van Zeeland, another publication by Zeeland Library, also carries the same text. Since the EvZ does not have a disclaimer, we have to assume that the EvZ is copyright protected. For a Wikipedia article on SvE, the text needs more work. In my view, for example, the section on Essequibo at the start of the fourth Anglo-Dutch war, is only indirectly relevant for the SvE. The two main sections of the article really are two different topics. Unfortunately, this article cannot be cleaned up. It has to be deleted for copyright violation. A new article has to be created from scratch. I will have to leave that to someone else. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Electronic Materials

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and China. Mccapra (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Electronic Materials does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source that provided significant coverage that I could find was this article from Science and Technology Daily titled "Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Electronic Materials Park is officially opened" (Chinese: 深圳先进电子材料国际创新研究院园区启用).
Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vels FC

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

Fails WP:GNG, shows no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Demt1298 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and India. Demt1298 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - the article claims they are playing in the 2024–25 I-League, that is not reflected in that article. Nothing at Soccerway. Giant Snowman 14:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Agree with comments and votes above. RangersRus (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Safety Authority

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

E-safety authority, has not been formally established. While it has been approved in a cabinet meeting, this does not constitute actual creation. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether an organisation has officially commenced operations or not is not relevant to notability. The fact that it is a government agency with a legal basis means it is highly likely to commence operations, anyway. We need to know whether the authority has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well a point I forgot to mention is that usually as per my knowledge after cabinet approval the act has to pass through parliament to come into force. Cabinet approval means that the Federal Cabinet has no issue with the act. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a proposed entity that has received some coverage in 2023, but I don’t believe it meets NORG since there isn’t any sustained coverage. Imv, it falls under WP:TOOSOON. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an only proposed government entity, it is WP:TOOSOON for this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as an ATD. I agree with the TOOSOON concerns and there's been no coverage of this agency since the announcement that I can see. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:09, 26 October 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 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!} 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Marxists

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Almost all sources in the article are clearly not reliable. These are practically only the most insignificant references to the organization's participation in some protest actions. The only sources with detailed descriptions are Vashi Novosti and Nakanune.ru, which, however, in the case of Vashi Novosti are devoted to an interview with the head of the organization, and for Nakanune.ru they also consider in the interview format the independent activities of a part of this organization, and not the organization as a whole. In addition, both sources, in addition to the primacy of the sources, raise doubts about their reliability. The other sources are even less reliable. Dantiras (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was unable to find any GNG-qualifying sources in English or Russian. Doesn't seem notable in the slightest. Noah ^💬 20:55, 1 November 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.

Biratnagar Kings

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

Teams that compete in a barely notable tournament, so don't need separate team articles. One team from the NPL was already redirected after AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokhara Avengers- though editors keep reverting that redirect against consensus)- and the same non notability applies to these other NPL teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating other NPL team:

Keep: This team already participated in the Dhangadi Premier League and have many coverage article about it in Nepal.Godknowme1 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If coverage exists, please add it. Everything on these articles so far is WP:ROUTINE. Just because they've competing in another league, that doesn't mean we need a separate team article, unless they meet WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Nepal Premier League is notable, but the teams in it are not. AA (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sporting franchises that sign international players are notable on their own. MurrayBird (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC) — MurrayBird (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not how WP:GNG works, and WP:NOTINHERITED applies to this argument too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Shrug02 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : NPL Franchise teams are popular internationally and many internationally known players are signed by these players. User: NiseEdits (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:ILIKEIT vote violating WP:NOTINHERITED. I hope the closing admin realises that none of these keep votes have mentioned WP:GNG or attempted to provide substantial reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any sources to assert notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not pass WP:GNG. All of the sources are WP:ROUTINE none of them are notable, and there's no WP:SIGCOV. I agree with the nom's WP:NOTINHERITED argument as well - the fact that some of the players are notable does not qualify the team for a standalone article. DesiMoore (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokhara Avengers

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeatedly recreated over the redirect, but as per the last AFD, this team isn't notable enough for a separate article, even though the page has been updated some more. I propose restore the redirect and WP:SALT it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Not sure a redirect is needed. AA (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Education Support

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

There is no assertion of notability and while I do not read Russian, Google Translate accesses it with some ease and I'm unable to find N:ORG level coverage. I do not think a redirect to or merge with Gymnazium Union of Russia is viable as I'm not sure that would survive AfD either although the name makes a BEFORE more challenging. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, and Russia. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without seeing significant third party reliable sources that show that the inclusion criteria have been met, I can't see how we can tell how important/significant this is. It has been reported but it seems to be only a small ripple in the media, and I'm not even sure how reliable those sources are. JMWt (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary Action

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

A poorly formatted article; most of the sources in the article and the before search seem to revolve around Helen Pankhurst. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information has been deleted from the page.

The information deleted was a description of this organisation. Why?

https://centenaryaction.org.uk/ Kps2015 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your explanation is a reason for deleting the article according to the guidelines. Kps2015 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Kps2015 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Kps2015 Notability isn't inherited; this is both a deletion argument to avoid and referenced in the biographical notability standards. The spirit of this guideline quite likely applies to companies people own. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your response (although I don't fully understand it!).

The problems with this page arise from the fact that fuller information about this organisation has been deleted (on grounds of copyright). The solution is to restore the full information about this organisation, not to delete the page. I will endeavour to sort this out. Kps2015 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 I really doubt that restoring the information will help with keeping the article. It's probably best to find sources that talk about centenary action without centering Pankhurst. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't "centre Pankhurst" it makes one mention of her. That is not a valid reason for deleting the page. Kps2015 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability isn't inherited" - I think what you are saying that it isn't of interest that the grand-daughter of those who campaigned for women's suffrage is campaigning in this area today. I would have thought that is arguable. Either way, how is that a reason for deleting an entire page about a major campaigning organisation, rather than simply amending it? Kps2015 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 You misundertand. I'm saying that it appears that Centenary Action is inheriting notability from that great-grandaughter, which I interpret to be something in violation of an invalid way to get notability. Please read the link I gave you. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses - if you look at the organisations which are members you will see that this is a serious lobbying organisation. Your personal feelings about the founder aren't a reason to delete a Wikipedia page. Kps2015 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ to allow work on improving sourcing. PamD 13:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD I'm open to this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PamD. I think that you can see that this is a serious organisation with a good cause. If you can suggest any improvements, that would be welcome. If you would like me to supply any further information, do let me know. Kps2015 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 The truth of the matter is, there are many, many serious organizations that have good causes that either don't have Wikipedia articles, or have surprisingly short ones. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reason to delete a page. Please state on what grounds you believe that the page should be deleted. Kps2015 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 I've already explained my concerns over notability on this very page. I don't need to explain them again. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response.

Your objection makes reference to a company. There is no company and no ownership. This is simply a campaign organisation to increase the representation of women in the UK parliament.

Please either provide a reason for deleting this page that falls within the guidelines for deleting a page or remove your objection. Kps2015 (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 My objection in my first reply here to is within guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per PamD to give time and scope to improve the article - including the formatting, referencing, text and removal of some puffery (WP:NPOV). Note - this is an organisation, but is non-commercial therefore the stricter notability guidelines for WP:NORG do not apply and the subject is expected to meet WP:NGO in its own right. ResonantDis_tortion 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as created by a paid editor, who has taken six days since first being told about the need to declare this before doing so. PamD 16:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find hits on the words, nothing about this organization. Could perhaps be a line or two in women's voting rights in the UK or something, but we don't have coverage in RS. Most of them in the article are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liangyou Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Previous WP:PROD concerns still not addressed after many years. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and China. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) per nom. There’s no English language coverage of this company. If you find anything, please ping us. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian (talk · contribs), I've found Chinese-language sources that I've posted below. Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Luo, Yuyue 罗嵛月 (2015-04-15). "良友食用油曾经是上海老大，如今却输给金龙鱼" [Liangyou's edible oil was once the leader in Shanghai, but now it has lost to Golden Dragon Fish]. China Business News [zh] (in Chinese). Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via China Business Network.
  This article has a lot of negative coverage about Liangyou's business failures and also covers the company's history. The article notes: "据《第一财经日报》记者多方了解，这家2011年总资产已达154亿元、全年销售收入165亿元的老牌国企，这几年却不尽如人意。食用油是良友的主营业务之一，良友集团原领导曾有“海狮兴，则良友兴”的论断，一位资深业内人士如此告诉本报记者。现实非常残酷，上海作为良友的总部，占尽“主场”便利，良友不仅输给了跨国粮油品牌金龙鱼，在央企品牌福临门和台湾品牌多力冲击下，良友也应对乏力，市场份额下滑。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the reporter of China Business News, this old state-owned enterprise, which had total assets of 15.4 billion yuan in 2011 and annual sales revenue of 16.5 billion yuan, has not been satisfactory in recent years. Edible oil is one of Liangyou's main businesses. The former leader of Liangyou Group once said that "if Sea Lion prospers, Liangyou will prosper", a senior industry insider told our reporter. The reality is very cruel. As the headquarters of Liangyou, Shanghai has the convenience of "home court". Liangyou not only lost to the multinational grain and oil brand Golden Dragon Fish, but also failed to cope with the impact of the central enterprise brand Fortune and the Taiwanese brand Duoli, and its market share declined."
  The article notes: "市场人士分析，良友食用油售价低，是因为作为国企，担负了上海市平抑物价的责任，企业品牌投入资金相对较少。这导致良友在市场竞争中非常不利。"
  From Google Translate: "Market analysts analyzed that the low price of Liangyou cooking oil is because, as a state-owned enterprise, it bears the responsibility of stabilizing prices in Shanghai, and the company's brand investment is relatively small. This puts Liangyou at a great disadvantage in market competition."
2. "中国经济 '99" [China Economy '99]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). 1999. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "公司建于 1998 年 10 月,目前已开业 100 家“良友便利”连锁店。未来发展目标是三年内建成 300 家连锁便利店。上海良友集团是根据国务院《关于进一步深化粮食流通体制改革的决定》精神,经中共上海市委、市人民政府批准,以国有骨干粮食企业为主体,于 1998 年 8 月 8日成立。上海良友(集团)有限公司是上海良友集团的核心企业,注册资金 17 亿元人民币。主要经营:粮油批发、加工,资产经营,实业投资,房地产开发经营及物业管理,科研开发,咨询服务,国内贸易等。下辖 7 个全资子公司, 2 个控股子公司。上海良友集团承担上海粮食市场流通主渠道任务。"
  From Google Translate: "The company was established in October 1998 and currently has 100 "Liangyou Convenience" chain stores in operation. The future development goal is to build 300 chain convenience stores within three years. Shanghai Liangyou Group was established on August 8, 1998, based on the spirit of the State Council's "Decision on Further Deepening the Reform of the Grain Circulation System", approved by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Municipal People's Government, with state-owned backbone grain enterprises as the main body. Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. is the core enterprise of Shanghai Liangyou Group with a registered capital of RMB 1.7 billion. Main business: grain and oil wholesale, processing, asset management, industrial investment, real estate development and operation and property management, scientific research and development, consulting services, domestic trade, etc. It has 7 wholly-owned subsidiaries and 2 holding subsidiaries. Shanghai Liangyou Group undertakes the main channel task of Shanghai grain market circulation."
3. Li, Jianzhi 李建致 (2019). "沐浴春风成长壮大——上海良友集团二十年之发展认领" [Growing Strong in the Spring Breeze: The 20-Year Development of Shanghai Liangyou Group]. 商业企业 [Commercial Enterprise] (in Chinese). No. 6. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "1998年,上海良友(集团)有限公司成立,从此粮油企业和职工,真正步人市场竞争的大海;2000年,改革、调整和转型,良友企业焕发出新的生机;2015年,联合重组,打造实力,良友集团风华正茂,昂首阔步。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1998, Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. was established. Since then, grain and oil enterprises and employees have truly stepped into the sea of market competition; in 2000, reform, adjustment and transformation, Liangyou Enterprises have regained new vitality; in 2015, joint reorganization and strength building, Liangyou Group is in its prime and strides forward."
4. Liu, Lijing 刘丽靓 (2015-05-08). "光明食品集团与上海良友集团联合重组" [Bright Food Group and Shanghai Liangyou Group Jointly Restructured]. China Securities Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "上海良友集团是上海从事粮食经营的国有企业集团，承担着政府委托或指定的职能，为保障上海粮食安全和供给稳定服务。其经营领域涵盖粮油加工、仓储物流、便利连锁、粮油贸易、进出口业务、实业投资等。集团下属20家全资、控股子公司和13家参股公司，以及国家级粮油制品检验检测中心和上海市级集团技术中心。经过多年发展，旗下拥有海狮、乐惠、雪雀（福新）、味都、三添、友益等上海市著名商标和上海名牌产品，主要粮油产品上海市场占有率名列前茅。"
  From Google Translate: "Shanghai Liangyou Group is a state-owned enterprise group engaged in grain business in Shanghai. It undertakes the functions entrusted or designated by the government to serve the guarantee of Shanghai's grain security and stable supply. Its business areas cover grain and oil processing, warehousing and logistics, convenience chain, grain and oil trade, import and export business, industrial investment, etc. The group has 20 wholly-owned and holding subsidiaries and 13 joint-stock companies, as well as a national grain and oil product inspection and testing center and a Shanghai-level group technology center. After years of development, it owns Shanghai's famous trademarks and Shanghai famous brand products such as Sea Lion, Lehui, Snow Bird (Fuxin), Weidu, Santian, and Youyi. The market share of its main grain and oil products in Shanghai ranks among the top."
5. "日本九州农协与上海签订2000吨日本米出口协议" [The Kyushu Agricultural Cooperative in Japan has signed an export agreement for 2,000 tons of Japanese rice with Shanghai]. 中经网 [China Economic Net] (in Chinese). 2007-12-04.
  The article notes: "报道称，承销这批大米的是在中国具有大米专卖权的“良友集团”旗下的“上海良友公司”。"
  From Google Translate: "The report states that the underwriter of this batch of rice is "Shanghai Liangyou Company," which is under the "Liangyou Group," a company that has exclusive rights to sell rice in China."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shanghai Liangyou Group (simplified Chinese: 上海良友集团有限公司; traditional Chinese: 上海良友集團有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources found by Cunard added to the article, then I’m going along with a Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a further review of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Party (Turkey)

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

Yet another Turkish political party article with no cites at all. I have not found enough to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The party had a short life, but received a lot of media coverage, such as [5]. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehazkim

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

Based on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having two major problems with this article: [1] How is it notable? It's a small organization. References are passing mentions or not independent. Sources are hard to find – tag me if found – since מחזקים is a common Hebrew word. [2] Where does this article/organization fit in with the rest of Wikipedia? The organization exists and has some activities and impact. It can be mentioned elsewhere, for example at the New Israel Fund, yet hasn't been organically included in ANY other articles. The latter nixes redirect. The interests are broad so no immediate (highly selective) merge destination comes to mind. Sticking with the NIF example, it is obviously not a subsidiary. It may belong somewhere in the discussion of NIF but we do not know that for sure, nor how to include Mehazkim. [1] and [2] lead to delete. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier Bancorp

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources are routine. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, Delaware, and Montana. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:LISTED, sufficient independent sources to clear WP:NCORP almost always exist for publicly traded companies. "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports", and that is the case for this company. See the table below linking to recent (paywalled) independent analyst reports from MarketBeat for Glacier Bancorp (GBCI). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
10/2/2024	Raymond James	Boost Target	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$45.00 ➝ $48.00	+7.55%	View Report Details
9/20/2024	Truist Securities	Boost Target	Hold ➝ Hold	$46.00 ➝ $50.00	+6.68%	View Report Details
8/27/2024	Piper Sandler	Reiterated Rating	Neutral ➝ Neutral	$38.00 ➝ $38.00	-17.84%	View Report Details
4/23/2024	Stephens	Lower Target	Equal Weight ➝ Equal Weight	$44.00 ➝ $40.00	+4.49%	View Report Details
4/22/2024	DA Davidson	Lower Target	Buy ➝ Buy	$48.00 ➝ $45.00	+25.28%	View Report Details

Comment I have access to reports of this type. A more correct name for those reports are "price target" reports. They do not contain in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company, instead they contain calculations based on earnings, dividends, projections, etc and then determine whether, according to their proprietary calculations, whether the stock price will move and therefore whether they recommend an investor should buy/hold/sell. That's not to say that those analysts haven't created fuller reports which do, in fact, contain in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the company. Just that those ones linked above aren't it. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 1 November 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) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dclemens, and a quick Google news search[6]. This company likely meets notability criteria. Takipoint123 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Organizations deletion

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique

CEWC Northern Ireland

Oxfordshire Historic Churches Trust

Chinese Mental Health Association

Macintyre Art Advisory

HK Alfa

Toronto Ukrainian Genealogy Group

International Cities of Peace

AccessArt

Groww

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement

Society for Navigation on Essequibo and adjacent Rivers

Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Electronic Materials

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

Vels FC

E-Safety Authority

Union of Marxists

Biratnagar Kings

Pokhara Avengers

Foundation for Education Support

Centenary Action

Liangyou Group

Peace Party (Turkey)

Mehazkim

Glacier Bancorp

Proposed deletions

Categories