Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans Safety Network (2nd nomination)

Trans Safety Network

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Trans Safety Network
• Articles for deletion/Trans Safety Network (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Trans Safety Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG, I did not find sources offering significant independent coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Strong keep as the network is notable in the UK. There are secondary sources about it ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and even academic research recognizing it ([7], [8], [9], and more). But I recognize Eddie891's point so I suggest some of these references being incorporated into the article so it is better sourced and more complete. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  Which of those sources have significant coverage and are reliable, and independent from the organization? I see reliable sources with trivial coverage, and non-independent sources with substantial coverage, but none that are all three. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  1, 3 and 4 are not even independent. MarioGom (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, per sources above, and aside from the fact I just had to remove a speedy deletion tag from this same page just a few days ago because no-one bothered to check that the content was different and was based on new sources unavailable when the first version was deleted, many of the new academic sources mentioned above are even newer that have been published since this version was created. Somehow I don't think its good idea to delete an article as "non-notable" when it seems to be continually generating new usable sources. Iostn (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  Iostn: Which of those sources is an independent and reliable source that provides WP:ORGDEPTH, if any? MarioGom (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)