Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs.

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Organizations deletion[edit]

Sons of the Covenant Monastery[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Iraq, and California. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast Stars F.C.[edit]

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

No evidence this club meets the GNG. 'Keep' arguments at the last AfD in 2012 included that it "looks notable" and "think the team is notable", but I was unable to uncover WP:RS on a Google search. According to another unsourced Wikipedia page, the team dissolved in 2012 after a single season. C 679 13:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. C 679 13:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tel Chai[edit]

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror. Fails WP:NORG, no WP:SIGCOV, no WP:GNG. Both cited sources are WP:SPS that do not establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and Illinois. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Amal[edit]

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

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

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

Camp JCA Shalom[edit]

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

Redirect to Jewish summer camp. Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV of otherwise non-notable summer camp. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and California. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Polo & Equestrian Club[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Asia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows[edit]

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

This article is nominated for deletion as it doesn't meet WP:V, WP:N and not WP:S talk more of WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed malformedQueen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 03:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the nominator here. If there exist notable schools and sources, it is therefore a populated district, and meets WP:GEO and WP:PLACES. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe

Does it not amaze you that there are no references to support claims? wɔːr (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, there are plenty Google pop news of this place. It even has a notable newspaper of it's own meaning it's notable

Maybe we can look closely at this.

e. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School districts are nearly always notable due to the large amount of coverage provided by local and regional news. Jumpytoo Talk 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Goose SC[edit]

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

Very new team in the amateur USL League Two. All my searches brought up mainly schedule announcements from other USL League Two teams. The only substantive coverage I could find was the this local article from 2022. Anwegmann (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Shreveport-Bossier Journal did cover them: [1] [2] [3] However it doesn't look like that is the top newspaper in the city and other newspapers haven't seemed to cover them. Marginal, but not a clear delete. SportingFlyer T·C 02:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would fall under local coverage, which doesn't help toward WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no problem with being local coverage in this situation as long as the source is reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You have other sources covering Blue Goose SC, including the USL 2 official website, the NPSL (though not much), and another news website (UndertheRadar NWLA)... not sure if the latter qualifies as 'local' coverage since it covers the entire Northern Louisiana, not just Shreveport - but there seems to be decent news coverage of a semi-professional (not amateur) team that continues to play in a significant [notable] league: USL II. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is league websites are generally not true secondary coverage of a club. The last news website looks like a blog and may not be reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same general issue I have. If it was consensus that league websites were seen as independent of the team and secondary, I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion. It's certainly not a clear consensus. Anwegmann (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @Atcovi. Svartner (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Hill Music[edit]

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

This is pretty much WP:INHERITORG. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. These sources are paid promo puff and advertorials. Too promotional to be called reliable pieces. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable record label. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it’s not a record label but a gospel music community. Check references. Madeforall1 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is about a gospel music group and not a recool label, it’s an independent gospel group with notable artists. The references as real facts, true facts and all visible on the internet, everything mentioned on the articles are reliable and from reputable news publications, when the keyword “Light Hill Music” is searched, you find sources corresponds with the references, kindly check the YouTube page of the topic I have written about and check it out. I’m not connected to the subject but it’s a community of artists I’ve seen there songs trend and I wish to write about them here, So I strongly suggest this article should be kept, there are no exaggerations, articles is written in line with Wikipedia community guidelines Madeforall1 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable music group, does have a sense of promotion about it. The sources aren't terribly in depth; having a youtube in this day and age isn't notable. We'd need to see charted singles, musical awards or other forms of musical notability here, see MUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Measure of Music (conference)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent and affiliated with the conference and its founder. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Previously PRODed by another editor, disputed by page creator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: Hi, I'm the author of this article. Measure of Music (MoM) is not a company or organization, it's an annual event – do you think it shouldn't be held to the same standards as Wikipedia:NORG? Is there something more comparable we can explore? Many of the peer articles on the main Category:Music conferences list have the same caliber of PR based sources, which is where I got the idea to make this contribution. For reference, I mirrored other international reoccurring events like M for Montreal, Japan Music Week, Midwest Music Summit, and International Music Conference while researching and building this article for MoM. Thanks for your suggestions. Copeland.powell (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesha811 had earlier suggested two criteria against which such a recurring event can be evaluated. Both require "significant coverage", see WP:SIGCOV. Let's check the very first source (musebycl.io): it is a site self-declared as "Home to Creative Marketing, Advertising News", clearly fails the "Reliable" criterion. Attempt to view the content (to other editors: disable the Javascript first!) is blocked by an enormous pop-up ad. Past the ad, an interview by the founder, clearly fails "Independent of subject". We are all volunteers here, very few people would check any further. I did: the second source (Technical.ly) is by the founder herself.

Arguing that some other articles are not properly sourced either generally does not work, see WP:WHATABOUT (maybe they should eb deleted, too? maybe better sources exist, just not added to the article yet?).
Викидим (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and checking some of the references above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Викидим (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco Improv Alliance[edit]

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

The article has no sources, I cannot find any sources, and the group is possibly defunct given that their website is a dead link. The group's founder may have created this page, given the username. The creator's other article also has cites no sources, though I will attempt to find some before recommending deletion for that as well. Wikipedaen (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information found other than routine database entries (e.g. Yelp). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An unremarkable local group, article probably created by the creator of the group, defunct for 15 years, no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasads Multiplex[edit]

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

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

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

International Socialist League (2019)[edit]

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

In its current state, I'm not sure how this article meets our policy for notability of organizations. All of the cited sources are from periodicals and organizations directly affiliated with this organization (1 from Socialist Middle East, 1 from Alternativa Socialista, 3 from Asian Marxist Review, 1 from Periodismo de Izquierda, 1 from MST, 2 from the Socialist Laborers Party and 5 from the International Socialist League itself). Looking through Google Scholar, almost all of the results I see are about the South African International Socialist League, I can't find any clear cases of significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources.

Despite linking to 25 websites and facebook pages affiliated with this organization, it doesn't appear that any of these affiliates are independently notable either, so I'm not sure what case can be made for this article needing to exist. Also, the only pages that appear to link to this one are just long lists of Trotskyist internationals. I don't think every non-notable Trotskyist international necessitates individual pages. Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit[edit]

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

WP:OR / WP:MADEUP coinage. I find no evidence of the term "Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit" existing prior to this article's creation in 2012; every source that has used it has come afterward. Even in post-2012 material I see no WP:SIGCOV in sources that clearly qualify as WP:RS. The "circuit" is not mentioned in any of the article's references except for RetroSeasons (which postdates the WP article by several years and on one of its pages copies almost verbatim from it). One might agree or disagree that the early independent teams of western PA loosely constituted a "circuit", but it's not for Wikipedia to make up a capitalized name for it and treat it as an established concept. This isn't a case like the Ohio League, which, while not a league in any strict or formal sense, is attested in its own time and by historians. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UHO MZF F.C.[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Coverage and sourcing is just They exist" and champions of two cups of some type. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The combined sources already in the article, and including the additional source in the Bahasa article, are exactly the sort of GNG-passing coverage I would expect of a lower division football team. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radix DLT[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill non-notable crypto project. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No claim to significance in the wider technological or financial community. Lack of WP:RS, the majority of sourcing is either blogspam or press releases. Principal contributor has only edited this article, and nothing else. Likely WP:PROMO, potentially in support of a pump-and-dump effort as cursory research indicates a recent promo push. Possibly undisclosed WP:PAID. Melmann 11:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it clearly has no claim to notability. OhHaiMark (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage in Finyear, Cryptonews and other non-RS sites are what I find, this is not a notable subject for wikipedia. Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used in the article is of the same quality... Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The project has blog articles going back many years, and has had peer reviewed academic papers published, unlikely to be pump and dump with that history. 2A02:C7C:F118:D600:8CE:2581:B679:4325 (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blog articles are really useless for notability as they have no editorial oversight. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more info. Could you show us some of the peer-reviewed academic sources covering the cryptocurrency? OhHaiMark (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a Forbes article covering the company. Forbes is a reputable source. https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2019/01/09/this-hermitic-engineer-is-plotting-the-death-of-blockchain/ Marepy (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's only one source. We need three to make this article notable enough to stay. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you the IP who noted the blog articles. If so, you'll need to edit exclusively logged-in so people won't think you're socking. OhHaiMark (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. I have seen so-called academic papers on the underlying algos written by Radix staffers. That does not count as an academic source, not least because it was not peer reviewed. MarcGarver (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. The Cerberus Paper has been peer reviewed

Source: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6h427354#author 2A02:C7C:F118:D600:8CE:2581:B679:4325 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czechoslovakia women's junior national softball team[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NTEAM because of a lack of coverage from RS. Let'srun (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Softball, and Europe. Let'srun (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Czech Republic and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Ireland Historical Society[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Sources cited in the article are all primary. Searching on Google Scholar and Google Books, I was able to find mentions of the COIHS in citations and acknowledgements, but no significant independent coverage. Searching online, I was able to find some concerning, scandalous, coverage that still appears to fall short of the ORGCRITE line: two letters to the editor in The Independent ([4], [5]) alleging that the COIHS played a key role in covering up a child sex abuse scandal in the Irish church, and two articles in The Phoenix making the same assertion in passing ([6], [7]). I was able to find exactly one likely (but paywalled) example of significant coverage in an independent RS ([8]) reporting on the same allegations, although even if we assume the absolute best of this source, we fall short of ORGCRITE's requirement of multiple such sources. I tried to look for potential merge targets on Wikipedia but didn't find anything promising. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, and Ireland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator source analysis. I also tried to identify a redirect, but the organization appears independent from the Church of Ireland and I couldn't identify another option superior to deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own WP:BEFORE returns the same coverage/mentions that the nominator identified in their own. Namely things like ROTM announcements in the Irish Times and mentions in letters to the editor in the Irish Independent. Or this in The Phoenix. A search in RTÉ returns only a single similar/fleeting passing mention. The only substantial coverage I can find is the same article (titled "Historical society accused of 'rewriting' its own past" and subtitled "Church of Ireland Historical Society removes references to founder following accusations of child sexual abuse") noted by the nom. Which, on its own, doesn't establish independent notability of the org. I also can't conceive of target for a redirect. Or other WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Sparta Sollentuna[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. The article contains some very obscure "accomplishments" supported by primary sources, but the history of the club would not attract any significant, independent coverage as they played on the eighth and ninth tier. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—A ninth-tier team is not notable in any country and any sport. And it will likely not get any meaningful non-local coverage unless it makes a massive, years-long run of promotions. Is there an appropriate place to redirect? If not, "Delete" is the only option. Anwegmann (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva International Peace Research Institute[edit]

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

It is not clear why it should be relevant as an NGO. The article is short, and there are not so many links in the Internet that help understand its relevancy Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created by prolific sockmaster User:Chaudeau. The external link goes to a non-English site. It is not clear what this is, but it is not related to the Geneva Conventions. — Maile (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Jewish Camp[edit]

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

Delete or merge into Jewish summer camp. The page was originally created 15 years ago by a COI account, and since then per WP:BEFORE, no WP:SIGCOV found on this organization (beyond fleeting media mentions) that would establish WP:NORG and justify a standalone article. Longhornsg (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Judaism. Longhornsg (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Jewish summer camp. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jewish summer camp. I see no way of including information from this article into the target page. Why should this specific organization be mentioned and none of the others? A redirect is the best way to preserve the edit history without creating problems on the new page. Broc (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of the Polish Nation - Polish League[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, coverage in independent secondary sources is fleeting. Cited sources include an opinion piece that does not appear to make mention of the topic ([9]), press releases from the organization itself ([10], [11]), press releases for a counter-protest against an action called by ONP-LP ([12]), and mere mentions in higher quality sources ([13] [14]). Searching online, on Google Scholar, and on Google Books for various permutations of the organization's name and acronym in English and Polish, I was not able to find significant coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Poland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not want to directly participate in the vote since I am the person behind the article, and I want to apologize since I created this article when my experience was somewhat lacking, and I relied heavily on translating the page from Polish Wikipedia.

I would argue that the quality of the sources for the party is less of the problem of the party being that irrelevant (it participated in elections, which makes it more important than half of the 1990s Polish parties that have articles), and has more with me not doing a good job here. I apologize for my shortcomings and I will try to improve the article in the coming days.
I managed to find following secondary sources that give more information on the party beyond a mere mention:
- Lakomy Lilianna. (2008). Komunikacja perswazyjna w języku polityki na przykładzie polskich kampanii prezydenckich. Praca doktorska. Katowice : Uniwersytet Śląski;
- Jacek Harłukowicz. (2005). Kandydat szuka niszy. https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kandydat-szuka-niszy-6037504817279617a;
- Paweł Malendowicz. (2013). Polonia amerykańska wobec członkostwa Polski w NATO i Unii Europejskiej. Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej. Bygdoszcz;
- Jarosław Tomasiewicz. (2002). Powrót Ligi. Sprawy Polityczne;
- Marcin Kornak. (2008). Katolog wypadków – „Brunatna Księga”. NIGDY WIĘCEJ nr 16.
Thank you. Brat Forelli🦊 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article was clearly improved to a good standard. Polish kurd (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after improving article, I believe that the amount of references providing non-trivial mentions is sufficient to keep it.

Brat Forelli🦊 14:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article seems relevant to me and I believe the references should meet notability requirements. I also believe it has been improved and well worked on. Mevoelo (talk)

Keep Has contested multiple national elections and received 60,000 votes in one of them. Clearly a notable political party IMO. Number 5 7 01:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been expanded since nomination and cites RS. It would be good to hear from the nom if they find this satisfactory now? @Rosguill _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried following up on the sources identified by Brat Forelli above--the only ones I was able to access were Lakomy 2008 and Harlukowicz 2005--Lakomy 2008 does comprise significant coverage, but Harlukowicz appears to be just a mere mention. So, I still haven't actually seen enough coverage to meet ORGCRITE, but it is possible that the other sources cited that I was unable to access have such coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otago NORML[edit]

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

Most of the sources are either regional publication (mainly the Otago Daily Times), university newspapers (Critic Te Arohi) and primary-sourced YouTube video. I only see two national sources. The first I can't access, and the second is a mention of a cannabis museum but does not go into detail. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd give the ODT more credit than being a regional publication; it's the major newspaper covering Otago. Yes, that is a region, but you could also argue the same for The Press in Christchurch, and I would also disagree with that thinking. The sustained ODT coverage brings this over the general notability line for me. Schwede 66 07:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the ODT and One News coverage clearly establishes notability imo. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are not 'more' sources available, but the existing ones establish the subject's notability. For example, the Critic here, establish GNG. Others include Otago Times here among others. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Critic Te Ārohi established notability as it is a student newspaper of Otago University. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSSM applies here: given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions — HTGS (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed with comments above. ODT establishes notability. Student newspapers are prone to inaccuracy and errors but I suppose they might be used in this context. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to NORML New Zealand) as lacking significant non-trivial coverage. I don’t think the ODT is an unreliable source, nor do I think regional papers should be looked down on (technically all of NZ’s printed newspapers are regional), but most of the “coverage” in the article is very sparse, and neither the ODT nor the One News sources represent non-trivial coverage of the org itself, so much as coverage of various events and people where the org was mentioned (per WP:SIGCOV example on Clinton’s high school band). I have the impression the org is currently defunct or inactive. Thanks Panamitsu, I have been meaning to nominate this article for a while. — HTGS (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the discussion of Otago Daily Times is relevant; WP:BRANCH is extremely clear that "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Every source in this article, and every source I could find in a BEFORE search, is either local to the Dunedin area or to the university itself. (The only non-local source is really about Abe Gray and a museum, not sigcov of Otago NORML.) I would encourage other editors and participants here to engage with the WP:BRANCH criteria here, since WP:ORGCRIT establishes a higher standard than WP:GNG for organizations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per above Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Swing Championships[edit]

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

The three non-primary sources in this article contain only trivial coverage. A WP:BEFORE search for the event name in English and French turned up nothing usable. (In terms of precedents, there are currently no other articles on individual swing dance events, and I would expect to see one on the more significant International Lindy Hop Championships before this.) Sdkb ^talk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Events, Organizations, and Canada. Sdkb ^talk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dozy Mmobuosi Foundation[edit]

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

Not meeting GNG; Promo; delete or redirect to Dozy Mmobuosi or BoraVoro (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Business, Education, Medicine, Technology, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dozy Mmobuosi: Almost repeated content from the founder. I fund no reason why it shouldn't be redirected. There is an atom of notability per the allegations about the foundation not the founder that is keepable; though I have see almost all of them in the main founder article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Afrika[edit]

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

No extensive third-party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Kenya, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer at the 1986 International Cerebral Palsy Games[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found. Tournament has no article, match results are missing for many games, sources are databases, location is a small village. Fram (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Events, Organizations, Football, and Belgium. Fram (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The location notwithstanding, there is no demonstrable coverage of the event, failing GNG. Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Location is important (as part of the rationale) as the village has only a very small football stadium[15], so it's not as if this was an event at some major location with potentially thousands of visitors and an increased chance of good coverage. If this tournament had been played at e.g. the King Baudouin Stadium, then it would seem more likely that there was national or international coverage we just haven't found yet. Fram (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecom Express[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company making press releases or announcements is not significant and cannot be considered notable. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Attaching some sources [16],[17],[18]. These three sources are sufficient to meet the WP:THREE criteria and hence pass the WP:ORGCRIT. A Google search would also produce some more reliable results. Akshithmanya ^talk 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails CORPDEPTH. The WP:THREE provided by Akshithmanya are PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

360 Communities[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Minnesota. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Last AfD had low participation. Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bago University Students' Union[edit]

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communion of Western Orthodox Churches[edit]

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

The only independent source given, Thöle, only mentions the CWOC in passing. I can't find any source that actually covers their activities. There's no evidence that this communion is more than a loose agreement of three small like-minded denominations. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While autocephalic churches in communion with a significant church are almost always notable national branches of a church located outside that church's home country, this does not appear to be the situation for the "communion" among the three churches that are the subject of this article.[19] I would consider changing my vote if independent sources were found or the significant concepts and French sources were explained and verified. Ben Azura (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigate Europe[edit]

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

None of the sources that mention the subject cover it in depth, so fails the WP:SIRS test, and so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and Europe. UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As AFC reviewer, I'm a keep here. The article probably needs a bit of work, but it does appear to meet WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals on the surface, and appears to have been used and cited in a number of different reliable publication, as well as received coverage in various non-English sources, mainly French and Germans (see fr:Investigate_Europe for some more examples of this). I think that WP:GNG is met in this instance. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Student Network Armenia[edit]

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

Local branch of Erasmus Student Network, no independent notability. Broc (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Working on expanding the article. ESN Armenia is quite active and one of the more notable student organizations within the country. English publications may be limited as most of the content referencing the org is in Armenian. Will continue to expand with refs. Any help is appreciated :) Archives908 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a subsection of Erasmus Student Network. I do not think it is bad that the information is out there if verifiable and noteworthy enough to mention specifically, though ESN Armenia is hardly notorious enough to warrant their own WP article, considering that there are 44 national, and even more regional ESN network organisations. Note also that Erasmus Student Network Yerevan has also been created, and would merit the same treatment. --Konanen (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkawkaw Senior High School[edit]

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

Nothing much to be notable. While I agree with WP:NSCHOOLS, "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." I can't find any WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE for a simple article. WP:SIRS already was not enough except for the schools 50th anniversary. A redirect can be kept though at List of schools in Ghana#N. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may not be the most influential school in all of Ghana, but it meets the GNG and WP:NORG. See source analysis below. Bgv. (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Babegriev, I still guess why this and this should be called WP:SIGCOV or attribution for WP:GNG. Per WP:NHSCHOOL, these are type of sources used to clarify a school exist just not about notability. It was a passing mention of "breaking a teacher's windscreen or thereabout" in this source, and here about a set/class that did something for the school (which is no way notability). It's very hard to see this things and say a school lacks notability, that's why even the SNG guideline says "all school are assumed to be notable". You can also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.ghanaiantimes.com.gh/nkawkaw-shs-celebrates-50th-anniversary/	No association with subject known	Meets WP:NEWSORG	School is the subject of the article	✔ Yes
https://newsghana.com.gh/nkawkaw-shs-lacks-logistics/	No association with subject known	~ Appears to meet WP:NEWSORG	Critical article about the school and its administration	~ Partial
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1119989/solution-to-west-african-senior-school-certificate.html	No association with subject known	Meets WP:NEWSORG	Speaks to the school's involvement with a state examination controversy.	✔ Yes
https://www.modernghana.com/news/817913/nkawkaw-senior-high-school-receives-support-from-1992-year-g.html	No association with subject	Meets WP:NEWSORG	Coverage of alumna's philanthropy to school.	✔ Yes
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}}.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Did the nominator create this source assessment table? Because if so, it looks like they are putting forth an argument to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Bgv. I agree that it meets GNG and WP:NORG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (12 May 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to once again initiate the deletion of the article, based on the same rationale presented during the initial deletion discussion. - "Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND." TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion (again)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism[edit]

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

Not at all at G4, but the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Project against Hate and Extremism of the citation of reports vs. WP:ORG level coverage remain true. Bringing it back here for discussion. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Alabama. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to all participants in the prior AfD: @MarioGom, Alsee, Cullen328, LordPeterII, DanielRigal, TheresNoTime, and Idoghor Melody: Star Mississippi 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As of now (permalink), sources 1 to 5 are not independent and do not count towards notability. The rest of the sources cite reports by the organization, and some (like the one from apublica.org) go quite into depth into the reports, but still there does not seem to be in-depth coverage about the organization itself. It does not seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but the content of sources 6 to 10 would be due in various other articles. MarioGom (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to be honest I only found out about the previously deleted article when creating a redirect at GPAHE. I think the deletion in 2022 was adequate, but the organization's publications have since generated numerous news pieces including from CNN Portugal and Diário de Notícias, besides the above mentioned apublica.org. While these sources don't exclusively cover GPAHE itself, they do mention the organization extensively (at least one paragraph in each of those, and several in DN), they're entirely based on GPAHE's reports and cite them throughout. IMHO this is enough to attest significant coverage while clearly being independent, reliable and secondary. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also recommended in the 2022 AfD. There has been no significant change in the quality of the sourcing that I can see. According to WP:NORG, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. I do not believe that the coverage of this organization rises to the level required by the relevant notability guideline, and I believe that Alsee analyzed the matter very thoroughly in 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: with all due respect, I think you're reading too much into that particular part of WP:NORG. Firstly, "well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" - at least the three pieces I mentioned above, and many many others, do go well beyond brief mentions. They're not news pieces about something that were written independently of the organiation and then cite it in passing somewhere in the middle of the article. They're entire pieces built around the organization's reports and that give substantial coverage to the organization itself. The fact that this coverage isn't about the history of the organization isn't all there is to it. The pieces are about the organization's work and that cannot be ignored. A Pública's piece mentions GPAHE eight times throughout the text, as does Diário de Notícias. Surely that does not qualify as "brief mentions". Lastly, I call your attention to WP:NONPROFIT: the group must act nationally or internationally and, more importantly, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." I find that having their work featured in full pieces from outlets in Portugal, Brazil, the US, the UK and other places should be enough to cover both of those points. Mind you that none of the three articles I mentioned were published during the previous discussion: they're from jun/23, jan/24 and apr/24. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rkieferbaum, we disagree about how WP:NORG should be interpreted. That's OK. I stand by my recommendation, but if consensus develops to keep the article, so be it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't !vote last time but I think it is a weak keep this time. There are 70 hits in Google Scholar and several pages of Google News hits showing that academics and Reliable Sources take them seriously and are happy to use their research as a source but I don't see anybody covering the organisation itself as a primary subject, which is what it would take to move it from a weak keep to a full strength keep. If anybody can find something like that, even if it is not in English, then I think that would secure the keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous references in reliable sources, including several from scientific publications available at Google Scholar. Direct and extensive coverage at some of the most well known Portuguese newspapers, like Público, DN, Sábado, etc. I don't have any doubts about its relevance. Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel resonance with User:DanielRigal as there seem to be yet further articles that quote the organization. If increasing numbers of prominent publications mention the organization, then perhaps there is a point at which the subject should be considered sufficiently notable, perhaps. Some additional articles mentioning them that are not used in the article:

CapnPhantasm (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cullen; the issues from the prior AfD persist. The fact that they were mentioned in a couple newspaper stories doesn't really seem to change this. If not deleted, then this article at a minimum needs to be stubified -- it is unbelievably promotional and reads like a press release. The organization's mission is to strengthen and educate a diverse global community committed to exposing and countering racism, bigotry, and hate, and associated violence; and to promote the human rights values that support flourishing, inclusive societies and democracies? Holy freaking Christmas, what a mess. jp×g 🗯️ 01:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just semi'ed to stop the disruption. I'm the nom, but I don't see this as controversial. If you do, please feel free to request it reverted (or do it if you're an admin) Star Mississippi 13:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Paws[edit]

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

Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb (talk) 17:23, 14 May 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 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Procedural Close, as no deletion argument has been presented. The article certainly needs to be rewritten to remove POV issues, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the references in the article already present the subject's notability. Silver seren^C 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is requested based on dated news articles, no more relevant. 1nicknamesb (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being sourced to older articles is not a basis for deletion alone, but only [20] appears to be significant coverage of the organization itself so I don't think it passes WP:NORG. The sources seem to be news (WP:NOTNEWS) about an injured dog and imported pets or routine coverage of a small local organization. Reywas92^Talk 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.

These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. Silver seren^C 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A flawed nomination is not a reason for a procedural close once a valid Delete !vote has been voiced. Please address the sourcing to determine if this meets our guidelines. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia[edit]

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

Fails GNG, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This appears to be an incomplete new creation and should have been draftified instead of AfD'd. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A cursory search shows multiple independent RS covering the subject in English, Romanian and Russian.Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be coverage in English-language scholarly sources ([21] [22], both paywalled but which had substantial text matches in Google Scholar results snippets), and likely more in Romanian, Gagauz, Turkish or other languages. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions[edit]

Categories[edit]