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

Connect2India

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are mainly unreliable, mentions, or routine. CNMall41 (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chugh, LLP

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is strange since this is a US firm. Likely paid churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 04:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Forward (startup accelerator)

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

no reliable sources, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 01:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited in the article, full of hyperbolic puffery...one of the most clear-cut cases of WP:PROMO I've seen in a while. But as for sources, all I could find were this piece [1] and this one [2], both of which look like lightly-edited PR releases to me. Thus the article fails WP:NCORP. Note there is an unrelated FastForward project at Johns Hopkins, which is not connected with this company but has much more coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of in-depth, secondary coverage about the organization. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Archaeology. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zilla Shilpakala Academy, Kushtia

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

This WP:BRANCH of Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy fails WP:NORG for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS outside of its local area. I don't see evidence of notability for this road in a Bangladeshi city. The sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV of this road, just WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of it in the context of things happening nearby. This article also appears to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This article was previously BLAR'ed by Onel5969, which was reverted by page creator ইমন. Since I do not see standalone notability here, I seek an AfD consensus for a redirect to Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Bangladesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - restore redirect, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG.

Namah Pictures

AfDs for this article:

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

Long list of sources but not a single source which describes about the company and its work. Most of them are just mentions or in the form of press release about acquiring film rights or announcing about films. Hard to find independent neutral coverage about this company to meet notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Organizations, India, and Maharashtra. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable corp. As the nominator mentioned, I can't find coverage of the organization that meets SIRS of the company. Despite the length of blue-linked films in the article, there are no provisions for NFILM companies that allow for heritability (WP:NOTINHERITED) of the products or productions of a film company that meet notability. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Film. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And salt it. Clearly not notable as sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, There is no significant coverage of this company in any reliable source. Afstromen (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References are just passing mentions, no in-depth coverage. Fails to meet WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scurlock Foundation

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

This page could easily be contained by Eddy C. Scurlock, if there's anything extra to add here. It lacks WP:SIGCOV + requires additional sourcing for the claims on the page currently. 30Four (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Science, United States of America, and Texas. 30Four (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Animal, Health and fitness, Religion, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Mccapra (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colcom Foundation

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

Article has a history of promotion through environmental & civic projects. Significant portions of this article are just slightly re-worded from the Cordelia Scaife May page. Aside from the greenwashing and other projects that were listed prior to my removing of them, there is hardly enough for an article here. It was founded by May, funds anti-immigration causes, and received a large sum of money when May died. The only other piece of information here is that the foundation funded groups designated by hate groups by the SPLC, which could obviously be implied from their anti-immigration stance. This article is unnecessary & inherits at least a portion of it's notability from May, who was also the org's chairperson from its founding until her death in 2005. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:CORP and seems to be a significant behind-the-scenes player in U.S. politics. The article could be expanded using sources such as [3][4][5][6]. Nosferattus (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Family Foundation

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

In most sources, the Bravo Family Foundation is a passing mention rather than the focus of the article (typically Orlando Bravo). This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. 30Four (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation

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

The information on this page is redundant to the Simon Guggenheim and Guggenheim Fellowships pages and serves no purpose on its own. A majority of recent press seems to be reporting on the Fellowships handed out by the foundation, which would be applicable to the page mentioning the Fellowships. As it stands, the information on this page could easily be held on either, if not both, related pages. 30Four (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. 30Four (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Science, Social science, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center

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

Article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and New York. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic seems notable to me. Promotional content can be reduced. Passes GNG. AndySailz (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Republic of China

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

This is a random assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together. Some of the people listed have very tenuous connections, e.g. Syngman Rhee, Alexander von Falkenhausen. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, China, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a reason to delete article. An article of the same name already exists in Chinese Wikipedia, and it is a political term that is also used in reality. In the case of Rhee or Falkenhausen, the link also exists in Chinese Wikipedia, but you can remove it if it's unnecessary; there's no reason why the whole article should be deleted. ProgramT (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political term. It is a phrase, like Pro-Israel or Pro-Greenland. Also, this is not the Chinese Wikipedia. The fact that Rhee and Falkenhausen are linked there undermine that Wikipedia's credibility. "Republic of China"/"ROC" is mentioned exactly once in Rhee's article, in the caption identifying Chiang Kai-shek. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A content dispute (regarding the examples of Rhee and von Falkenhausen) is not grounds for deletion. Having an "assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together" is also not grounds for deletion; list articles are a thing, as are similarly-named and scoped articles like Pro-Americanism and Russophilia. "Other thing exists" arguments aren't policy-based, but I don't see a proposal here based on deletion policy and cannot figure out what the deletion rationale could be. The nominator's disagreements seem to be limited to a content dispute concerning possible WP:OR, rather than a denial of this topic's notability or existence. Yue🌙 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Consulting Group

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

There isn't much SIGCOV, just a few passing mentions in articles about DOGE and a bunch of primary sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Management, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree more sources are needed. I'd prefer it be kept, but I can merge it into United States Department of the Interior. 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC). ]

Roots of Reform Judaism

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

Tagged for notability for more than 10 years and fails WP:NORG. Non-notable constituency within the Union for Reform Judaism, which is a suitable redirect target as an WP:ATD. Per a before, unable to find independent, significant coverage of the group that would establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnen Foundation

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

Merge to Joseph Sunnen. The foundation lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails to be notable itself, but mentions of it could be made on Sunnen's page through the St. Louis Business Journal link found in the article. 30Four (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 30Four (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Nash Literary Agency

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

It is not meeting WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Dapat

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

WP:TOOSOON, electoral organization that failed to win at least one of the possible three seats in congress. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I fail to see how this is "too soon", as the election itself just happened. Sports teams are not sent to AFD as "too soon" if they haven't won a championship yet. Care to send Minnesota Timberwolves to AFD (LOL)? There's one WP:RS used on this article. WP:GNG does not mention how many WP:RS there should be, but this has one. Howard the Duck (talk)

Comment There is nothing much to write about the partylist besides "they ran". Whats up with the double dtandard at 1Munti Partylist's deletion nomination where you do note it didnt win any seats (but to be fair you did not vote gor or against its deletion) and EduAKsyon. Was it because this party is somehow connected to Aksyon Demokratiko (an assertation which seems to be made through an assumption of its founder, Bobbit Roco being a former president). Please at least make it clear why is this any different. I might have overlooked something Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think WP:NPOSSIBLE will save this article. A partylist especially a recently established one isn't usually covered by in real life publications either. So the typical sourcing would be news articles (supplemented by the partylist website if ever) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, this has one WP:RS covering it therefore passing WP:SIGCOV. The others didn't. 1Munti Partylist is a borderline case as it is related to the One Muntinlupa party and if it's the same organization one can argue that it if someone finds WP:RS that passes WP:SIGCOV then it has the same situation as this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EduAKsyon

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

WP:TOOSOON, electoral organization that failed to win at least one of the possible three seats in congress. Two citations are: A opinion poll native advertising highlighting EduAKsyon as one of the preferred partylist groups (even if it just placed 20th) and the group's contact us page. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while not "too soon", this party does not pass WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable --Lenticel ^(talk) 21:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Arts Management and Technology

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

Non-notable research center. No independent and in-depth sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CIPAMEX

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

No references. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology. UtherSRG (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SweetSpecter

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:EVENT and WP:PERP. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and China. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe it warrants a brief mention in OpenAI's article otherwise. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing

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

In 16 years this article has expanded to little more than a single sentence. Notability is not currently demonstrated - the only citation is the official website, a primary source. – numbermaniac 08:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Astronomy, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swinburne University of Technology. Individual research centres within universities are rarely independently notable, and I couldn't find anything to suggest that this one is an exception. MCE89 (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebag

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

Stuffed full oc WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD, while this has all the appearances of an article it is WP:ADMASQ. Tagged for WP:COI since November 2019, and "promotional tone" since January 2020, it's time to do a deep dig into this puff piece. References are PR pieces, announcements and churnalism. Alleged awards are designed not to recognise the company, but to boost the circulations of the media that awards them. Not demonstrated a pass to WP:NCORP and a WP:GNG failure 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and New York. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Let's do a Bastard Helper From Hell deep-dive into the 40 sources proffered here. The list is 42 entries long, but two are duplicates.

https://www.voguebusiness.com/fashion/can-rebag-fix-the-broken-consignment-model doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Service expansion news.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90770962/rebag-now-sells-clothes-and-shoes-as-it-takes-on-therealreal-and-vestaire-collective doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Product expansion news.
http://old.lafrenchtouchconference.net/new_york/2016/speakers/erwan-delacroix/ doesn't help for eligibility (connexion to subject). Profile of a company principal from a conference where he is a speaker.
We can't use https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/trendly-inc-3012944/ (too sparse). List of trademarks. Whether or not a company has a trademark is irrelevant to us.
We can't use https://www.whowhatwear.com/best-online-thrift-stores (too sparse). Patter-song listicle.
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/arts/rebag-luxury-handbag-retailer-opens-a-store-in-miami-design-district-11195660 doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Store-opening news.
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/08/luxury-handbag-marketplace-rebag-raises-25m-to-expand-to-30-more-stores/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Fundraising news.
https://techcrunch.com/2015/08/06/online-designer-bag-reseller-rebagg-gains-4-million-in-seed/ " " " " (" "). " ".
https://fashionista.com/2019/02/rebag-series-c-funding-25-million-expansion " " " " (" "). " ".
https://www.modernretail.co/marketing/rebag-launches-new-membership-program-to-grow-sales-and-woo-customers/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Service expansion news.
https://www.fashiondive.com/news/rebag-membership-program/714584/ " " " " (" "). " " ".
https://wwd.com/business-news/retail/miamis-brickell-city-centre-finesses-its-retail-mix-1235139017/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse, and routine coverage if it weren't). Name-drop in an article about firms opening new locations in a strip mall.
https://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/rebag-opens-first-mall-in-downtown-manhattan-oculus-westfield-mall-1202937458/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Store-opening news.
https://robbreport.com/muse/fashion-jewelry/adventures-in-secondhand-shopping-2821780/ doesn't help for eligibility (wrong subject). The article is more about the author's second-hand shopping trips, with Rebag barely discussed.
https://wsvn.com/entertainment/rebag-in-miamis-design-district-trades-in-designer-purse-upgrades/ is borderline. Half of the article is direct quotes from a company principal and a customer.
https://us.fashionnetwork.com/news/Rebag-opens-first-store-in-san-francisco-plans-20-more-u-s-locations,1148613.html doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Store-opening and expansion news.
https://www.newsday.com/business/resale-consignment-rebag-resell-1.37372976 is 404-compliant.
https://chainstoreage.com/luxury-handbag-reseller-rebag-expands-its-store-presence doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Store expansion news.
https://www.apparelnews.net/news/2021/nov/05/luxury-reseller-rebag-opens-beverly-hills-location/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Store-opening news.
https://www.retaildive.com/news/resale-e-retailer-rebag-establishes-two-stores-in-manhattan/522031/ " " " " (" "). "-" ".
https://www.insider-trends.com/how-23-leading-retailers-are-innovating-right-now/ doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Store-opening news, and the article is otherwise very borderline.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2019/10/8616275/clair-app-rebag-designer-handbag-appraisal-resale doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Service expansion news.
We can't use https://www.forbes.com/sites/abinlot/2019/10/24/rebag-introduces-clair-an-instant-evaluation-tool-for-the-luxury-resale-industry/ (no editorial oversight). Anything written by a "Contributor" or "Council" on Forbes.com is a glorified op-ed. The only time these sources are acceptable is if they ran in a print edition of Forbes (in which case the online article will note the issue it ran in). https://www.forbes.com/sites/syamameagher/2019/11/08/rebags-ability-to-instantly-tell-what-your-handbag-is-worth-is-a-game-changer-in-the-resale-race/ and https://www.forbes.com/sites/abinlot/2019/02/07/rebag-raises-25-million-in-its-series-c-round-of-funding/ suffer the exact same issue.
https://www.vogue.com/article/rebag-clair-universal-appraisal-index doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Service expansion news.
https://www.retailtouchpoints.com/features/news-briefs/rebag-introduces-clair-software-to-calculate-resale-value-of-luxury-handbags " " " " (" "). " " ".
We can't use https://insideretail.asia/category/markets/hong-kong/ (too sparse). We can't use any sort of search or tag lookup because there's nothing to work with, either figuratively or literally.
https://www.glossy.co/fashion/how-resellers-are-elevating-their-tech-tools-to-stay-ahead-of-competition/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Practically everything about Rebag in this piece comes from (read:is attributed to) a company principal.
https://www.teenvogue.com/gallery/rebag-infinity-designer-handbags-rotate doesn't help for eligibility (routine coverage). Service expansion news.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/a23678409/rebag-infinity-designer-bag-swap/ " " " " (" "). " " ".
I can't assess https://www.fastcompany.com/90600263/retail-most-innovative-companies-2021 (walled), but articles like this are rarely any good for notability for lack of detail. Same applies to https://www.fastcompany.com/90457916/style-most-innovative-companies-2020 .
https://www.glossy.co/announcement/influencers-social-responsibility-and-omnichannel-categories-highlight-a-remarkable-year-for-winners-at-the-2021-glossy-awards/ is a non-sequitur. (A source that does not so much as mention a subject is completely worthless as a source for an article about it.)
https://www.glossy.co/announcement/il-makiage-rothys-and-net-a-porter-are-among-the-finalists-for-this-years-glossy-awards/ doesn't help for eligibility (too sparse). Name in a list. I should also note that being a finalist for an award confers no notability by itself.
https://www.glossy.co/announcement/sephora-athleta-yoox-net-a-porter-group-and-more-are-nominated-in-this-years-glossy-awards/ " " " " (" "). " " " ". " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ".
We can't use https://www.instyle.com/fashion/accessories/bags/best-places-to-sell-designer-handbags-online (too sparse). Patter-song listicle.
" " " https://www.townandcountrymag.com/style/fashion-trends/g28762949/best-sustainable-fashion-brands/ (" "). "-" ".
https://www.whowhatwear.com/the-best-resale-websites-you-should-know-about is borderline. A good chunk of the section on Rebag is, wait for it, extended quotes from a company principal.
We can't use https://www.wmagazine.com/gallery/best-online-vintage-shopping-sites (too sparse). Patter-song listicle.

The overwhelming majority of sources here are little more than routine business news from disparate sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1Munti Partylist

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

The organization does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article as of right now. The article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and the article seems to contain machine-generated text. If the organization wins any seats in the Philippines 2025 general election, a article about the subject could be made. But as of right now, there's just coverage about the subject and their partylist - with some passing mentions and unreliable sources, and I think it is WP:TOOSOON. There is some independent, reliable coverage - but that's only about the organization's partylist. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Asia, and Philippines. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This party did not win seats in last week's election. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African Wildlife Defence Force

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

A third article about an organisation lead by the same person and written by the same editor, and with the same issues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Ornamental Breeders Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutrecul Agroforestry Project for the other two. This one is basically unsourced (neither source mentions the organisation) and I can't find any reliable sources which give significant attention to this one either. Fram (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fram (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hard to even confirm this group exists, with nothing in Gscholar, Books or Jstor. [7] is about all I can see that even mentions them, barely a mention even in this source. No sourcing to speak of. Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two mentions in a news article and a book. Not enough to satisfy WP:NCORP FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrecul Agroforestry Project

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

Article created by the same editor as the one behind the organisation now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Ornamental Breeders Association, and this project is lead by the same person, Jean Kiala-Inkisi, as that association. And it has the same issues, it completely lacks notability. Whether the "prehistory" (sic) section is about anything notable is hard to tell, but the actual Nutrecul project has after 12 years not gotten any significant attention from reliable, independent sources it seems.[8][9] Fram (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Biology, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fram (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: zero coverage and probable COI FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African Ornamental Breeders Association

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

It exists, but it lacks notability, and claims like "more than 200,000 members" are unverifiable. Very few sources even mention it[10], most of them not independent or not reliable (other wikis and so on). Their website[11] has only had a few thousand visitors (bottom of page), their organisations like the "AOBA National Evaluation Shows" and "AOBA International Championships"[12] are not mentioned anywhere[13][14]. This has all the characteristics of a one-man organisation trying to lure sponsors for the website and people willing to buy their imported poultry. It has no actual importance at all it seems. Fram (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Africa, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fram (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NCORP, mention is from primary source and one academic article, nothing to establish notability. The article is largely unsourced and contains misleading referencing as mentioned in the nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Codava Makkada Coota

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

None of the articles are about the organization, just mentions. Mostly WP:ROTM stuff about events they participated in. (to be fair, please review this version from before I removed some WP:NEWSORGINDIA content). 🄻 🄰 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, Organizations, Companies, and India. 🄻 🄰 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independents for the National Community

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

This was created by a since blocked user. It's existed for a while which is why I'm not nominating for speedy deletion, but the article is significantly different from its Spanish version. Although the party is likely notable, the rationale behind the user's block (right-wing trolling and sockpupetry) makes me think it's best to delete this and let it be recreated properly by someone who understands the topic, rather than try to fix it. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Venezuela. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia School Leaders Institute

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

Only covered in primary sources, could not find any sufficient coverage in secondary sources.

Deletion may be controversial since the article is linked on Template:Virginia Tech. Not sure where or if this should be redirected/merged ApexParagon (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a political organization whose notability is unclear. I accepted the draft yesterday but was questioned by a contributor of the article who told me that the draft had questionable sources that fall short of existing guidelines. The sources have been removed, and the only source that might contribute to notability is this. I could not find additional valid sources on the search engine, and so the organization might not meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. I am not opposed to another incubation in draftspace as an WP:ATD, but I do not think that the subject will be notable enough for inclusion in the near future. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that there was a previous AfD on the subject (which I somehow missed) that was kept and reverted to the old version of Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992). That said, I would not be opposed to a merger to that article as per WP:ATD. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing your feedback to my article. I believe that the range of sources from independent and reputable websites like Prospect, Dazed, and the Telegraph demonstrate the notability of this organisation. Unfortunately, @Rambling Rambler seems to be systematically removing other citations which I believe should remain in the article.

For example, this user has removed a press release by a government minister Michael Gove on the gov.uk website, which explicitly mentions the RCP and was delivered on live television. The grounds for removing this citation was Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF which does not apply to this situation, as the RCP is NOT the same as the British Government or Tory politician Michael Gove (needless to say).

Moreover, this user has removed another source from the Cambridge Independent, a well-established local newspaper, on the grounds that a "long quote" "adds nothing to the article". This is the quote:

In an interview with the ''Cambridge Independent'', an RCP spokesperson said "We do not want to tax the rich, which is impossible. We want these criminals expropriated and the economy unleashed by a working class government."

Firstly, the quote is two sentences so it's not exactly long. Secondly, it definitely adds something, given that it explains a key political and economic strategy that the party stands for, which isn't explained elsewhere in the article.

The consistency with which @Rambling Rambler seems to be preventing this article from being published (stretching back for a year) suggests to me that this person is politically in disagreement with the RCP, which may be the motivating factor at play here rather than objectivity and a desire to have Wikipedia serve internet users with good-quality information on a variety of topics.

As an aside, I know that "importance" alone is not criteria for notability on Wikipedia, but it is worth mentioning that this party is one of the biggest far-left parties in Britain by any means of measurement. It is roughly the same size as similar far-left parties like Socialist Workers Party (UK) and Communist Party of Britain and is certainly bigger and more notable than groups like Workers Revolutionary Party (UK), Revolutionary Communist Group (UK), Counterfire (group), Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee), and Alliance for Workers' Liberty – all of which have Wikipedia pages despite being a fraction of the size/relevance (and also a similar array of citations.

I hope this helps explain why I think this article should remain, and that a number of @Rambling Rambler's revisions (although not all of them, some of them are fair – just the ones highlighted above) should be undone. John Timothy Watson (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To get through this rather quickly:

- We do not need three sources to cite someone stood for election (not even for the party anyway) nor an addition of two lengthy quotes simply to source it's anti-capitalist when it's already been cited. This is an example of WP:OVERCITE and suggests a lack of notability as you're chucking in repeated sources for basic information.

- WP:ABOUTSELF does apply here with regards to a government press release (see also WP:PRSOURCE). ABOUTSELF applies to each source individually, so a PR statement by the government attacking a third party is a breach.

- Proclamations that this group is "important" is not a criteria for notability, period (see WP:GNG). We require high quality, independent sources to establish notability of a group.

- Pointing that other groups have pages is not a criteria for inclusion.

- Attacking other editors for having false intentions with no evidence is a bad idea. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to draft - I don't believe there's any harm once again putting it back to draft before a series of recent non-policy edits saw to push this to mainspace. Part of the reason we drafted it is because the predecessor organisation was notable so there is still potential for this one to become notable. It was also done as a firewall to prevent the numerous attempts by new accounts that only seem interested in this one group to hijack the previous group's page and instead force notability by the back door so to speak. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough independent reliable sources to build an article for. It’s also not really notable as it has received very little coverage and holds no elected representation at any level and does not have a very high membership or hold much influence for a Britian-wide organisation. I’ve removed a good amount of original research from the page and I suspect there is more in there as well as possibly some WP:SYNTH. Helper201 (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete: subject seems to not be notable enough and probably won't be until the next election in 2029 Laura240406 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's notability is unclear? I didn't see any notability of the subject as per WP:NORG. --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7 talk 06:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992) into it since it is basically the same organization with a new name. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be inconsistent with the consensus established last year on that page, which was that it should not be used for the RCP. Not sure it's within guidelines for an AfD on an article to override established consensus somewhere else. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. Should there be a new consensus to merge the two articles under the RCP name, that would supersede last year's consensus. I think it's now obvious that the RCP is a continuation of the SA so a change in consensus in favour of a merge is justified. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started the above discussion I am completely in favor of merging the two pages. Even if this isn't the same organization and you don't think it's notable on its own, information about it should at the very least warrant a section in Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992). That said, I favor a merger under Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) per above. Charles Essie (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, but the point is I don't think an AfD for say Article A saying "merge to Article B" if such a request has already been explicitly ruled out over at Article B. It'd need a new consensus to be established at Article B unless I'm mistaken. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason why not, especially when the consensus is old and hasn't been recently tested. A new consensus can be established in an AFD (and as I recall the old consensus to delete rather than merge was established in an AFD, but even if it wasn't there's no reason a new AfD can't reach a different consensus). AfDs are also not restricted by the request that begins it - there are numerous AFDs where the mover requests delete and the outcome ends up being merge or something else. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was established in an AfD but it was at the other article, and was to undo the conversion of it to an RCP article. Basically we have had two discussions at Socialist Appeal (an AfD and a Request Move), which both decided that article should be kept as just Socialist Appeal. I don't think having an AfD on a different article to overrule that is within guidelines. Essentially it would probably require this one being deleted/drafted, and then opening a new formal discussion on Socialist Appeal. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now we're having a new discussion. That's how Wikipedia works. I note your procedural objection to merging the articles based on your belief that past consensus binds us now and that an AFD cannot be used to estbalish consensus or overturn an old talk page consensus. I don't think that's true. But aside from your procedural argument do you have any substantive argument that Socialist Appeal and the RCP are either not the same organization under a new name or are not closely enough related to justify a merge under the RCP name? Wellington Bay (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not that we can’t have a new discussion, it’s that I don’t think this is the best place to have it because this isn’t the article where that was established.

If we wish to change the purpose of the Socialist Appeal article it would probably require a formal Request to Move be reopened there. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New England Nightmare

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

No significant edits for several years. Google search for references turns up only things about Halloween or bad news for the New England Patriots. It is unclear how this article can be salvaged. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some sources: [15][16] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fredericksburg Theater Company

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

doesn't meet WP:GNG not enough sources independent of the subject nor is there significant coverage of any sort SapphicVibes (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added some sourcing, and agree that it needed such. Some are under External Links, as that seems the easiest place to put this until more info can be found. — Maile (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a notable regional theater group. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Executive Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation

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

Fails WP:GNG; Google search doesn't find any reliable in-depth secondary sources; ~~only source on the article is primary~~ loserhead (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Organizations. loserhead (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources Guylaen (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that anyone can nominate, but because you don't have a user page, and this content has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm slightly suspicious of your intentions here in nominating this article for deletion. I do not mean to be accusatory in my nature here, I'm just a little confused. This is a highly notable position, and it's super easy to find information on Google. Also, I realize my mistake in not adding a Wikipedia:Stub tag before. I've added that now to the page. I usually remember to do that. Guylaen (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guylaen

you don't have a user page A userpage is optional, and that shouldn't make me (or anyone) suspicious or anything like that; see Trappist the monk and they are an administrator.

this content has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation Just the fact that something has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make it important or notable, AFAIK.

This is a highly notable position, and it's super easy to find information on Google. Current or former people holding this title may be notable, but I haven't seen any INDEPTH sources on the title itself.

Also please note that I don't know everything there is to know about Wikipedia and its policies so if I made a mistake please inform me. loserhead (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in either case, I've now listed more sources on this page than there are on List of leaders of Ford Motor Company. Guylaen (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would highly encourage you to please read bullet "C-2" at WP:BEFORE: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."

I literally only made the page six days ago. That's less than a week. I was going to properly build out this page a little more, but I got completely sidetracked by Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2025. I just kind of fell down a Ukraine rabbit hole. I have the same problem that most other writers here have: so little time, and so many articles.

Also, I literally have a final due tonight, and I have to go meet Leon Panetta again at noon. I would be looking forward to it, but I think I have a hernia and I've probably got GERD and I feel like crap. Anyways.

The problem in searching for a term like "CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation" is that in that most cases, the position itself is not the primary subject of a news story, but the person who holds the position, or the person who is doing something while they hold that position. So, yes, of course you're going to find mostly articles about the people. And by the rules, that's actually fine.

However, there are sources - you just have to muddle yourself through the internet to find them. Guylaen (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not because the sources don't exist, but in this case it is the Parallax effect: the individual CEO's loom far larger than the position of CEO. Guylaen (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - other than the Forbes puff piece, and the NY Post attack article, I don't see anything unreliable. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The easy compromise is to rename it 'List of CEOs....' as in fact it is and should be in case of affiliated person positions (out of humbleness, to say the least). 78.81.123.235 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors about this article and what the outcome of this discussion should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katwe Combined Boxing Club

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_10#Katwe_Combined_Boxing_Club * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's references don't support a claim of notability and my own search did not find anything other than passing mentions and fight results. What I didn't find was significant independent articles about the club itself. If such references are found, please notify me and I will reconsider. Papaursa (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2025 (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!} 23:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - just about everything would have to be replaced, both text and citations, for this to be an article. Bearian (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Freedom

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, not updated in over ten years. Unlikely to be salvageable at this point. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SPORTBASIC appears to apply to bios not teams. WP:NTEAM says that there are no special notability criteria for teams other than those listed under particular sports and American football doesn't seem to be listed on that page? This defunct team appears to have been covered somewhat regularly by the Manchester, Nashua, and Keene newspapers with occasional coverage elsewhere. Jahaza (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's unclear what you're referring to: there are three references in the article. There is no coverage by newspapers from Nashua or Manchester(the first reference is a wire story), and only one story from Keene. "Somewhat regularly" would infer that they would have coverage of all, if not most, of their games in addition to other coverage. If this coverage exists, why has it not been added in the last decade? If you can assist with adding these references, you are welcome and encouraged to do so.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025)

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

Similar translations have been rejected in Draft space twice, see Draft:Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands - 2025). As I have pointed out, coverage is mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands). There is this article, but in total I don't think the topic meets the notability threshold and it is better to wait for more coverage and/or electoral success. Dajasj (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. Dajasj (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I respectfully disagree. As the Wikipedia guidelines state that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I'd argue that sources with independent coverage such as Trouw, DUIC [nl], Dagblad010 in combination with sources such as RTL Nieuws that have coverage mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands), add up to a topic that can be deemed as having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, as the page already has a Dutch and Chinese translation, it would seem strange to deny an English translation, which seems like there is a double standard.

In short, I think there is enough coverage to meet the notability threshold. Electoral success as a prerequisite for the page doesn't seem logical to me, considering other existing pages of Dutch political parties that have not yet had any electoral successes. The Trouw article also explicitly covers antiparliamentary sentiments within the party, which implies the party itself does not prioritize electoral successes at least in the same way that the deletion request suggests.

I'd be happy to hear if you could detail which of the requirements from the general notability guideline exactly is missing and therefore how the article fails to meet the threshold. PS. Sorry If I messed some formatting up. I'm new to the AfD process.

Noverraz99 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Noverraz99 (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't look like it's in the best shape, but I am going over my head. Can someone from the Netherlands comment on the reliability of RSP and ROOD?
- Comment Indeed the article link seems to be broken. Luckily, it is archived here. As a person from the Netherlands I'd consider there to be enough reliable coverage of RSP and ROOD to warrant their articles, though if people disagree I would be open to hear their reasoning. Noverraz99 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The only source that you provided above is mentioned in the nomination statement. It might also be the only valid sources available to establish notability. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can totally grasp someone's frustration that there are so many political parties in the Netherlands. Yet we follow the P&G. This meets the GNG and NORG. It's a proper SPINOFF of its parent. gidonb (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proper spinoff? Whether or not WP:SPINOFF is guaranteed, it does not mean that the topic is immediately notable (notability is not inherited). And please provide sources that prove that the subject is notable enough. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is automatically notable. Why place such a reaction? Also, several others listed fine sources. No need to rehash that. As a justified SPINOFF, there is no case to delete. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with the nominator that the coverage from reliable sources has focused on the SP, not the RSP. "Significant coverage" means in-depth, focused coverage on the article topic in multiple reliable sources, not merely that multiple reliable sources mention it as part of the story. WP:ORG requires focused coverage. There is no inherited notability, and it seems to me that the undetailed coverage of the RSP only exists because of the SP, not because the RSP has done anything notable (yet). Yue🌙 22:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd argue coverage from the Algemeen Dagblad, Trouw and DUIC [nl] which all explicitly mention the RSP separate from the SP would count as significant. Simply put, the argument that the coverage would only exist because of the SP doesn't seem to hold up when for instance the Algemeen Dagblad article is in great part about, and features a prominent image of, the action headed by RSP.
Noverraz99 (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re [The sources] all explicitly mention the RSP separate from the SP would count as significant. This does not count brief mentions, which does not count towards WP:SIGCOV. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject has proven to not be notable of any sort, maybe exclude the one source mentioned above. I am also not opposed to a merger to Socialist Party (Netherlands) as an WP:ATD. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 07:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these reliable sources clearly show SIGCOV: Op de Dag van de Arbeid dromen socialistische jongeren hardop van de revolutie, SP royeert tientallen leden vanwege 'dubbel lidmaatschap', Er komt een nieuwe Revolutionair Socialistische Partij in Rotterdam. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the sources brought up by Goldsztajn.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the first two sources provided by Goldsztajn have significant coverage; in my opinion they suffer from the same problem of being focused on the SP and only being reported because of the SP. A splinter group doesn't inherit notability just because the more notable organisation it split from received coverage because of the split. The third source has focused coverage, but it's from a minor, local news site, and speaks mostly to the RSP's potential in the future. I'm not sure what makes the RSP notable at present aside from arguments that amount to inherited notability. Might be a WP:TOOSOON problem as well. Yue🌙 18:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vellimalai Sri Vivekananda Ashramam

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree per nom - not able to find much for WP:RS. Sources currently used seems mostly promotional and also e.g. without any staff writer in the byline - simply as "NEA News Service", "Express News Service". Also, e.g. I see that one news source link is flagged as "potential security risk". Asteramellus (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Hinduism, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This centre is a very important one in South Tamilnadu; the annual events conducted by the ashramam is a large event and is being attended by 25000+ students annually. The article cites three prominent newspapers from India: 1. The New Indian Express, a well-regarded and leading English-language daily in India; 2. Dinamalar, the third most widely circulated Tamil newspaper; and Dinamani, the most esteemed publication in the Tamil language. Those links are cited inline and shall be verified. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional article. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Link

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

I'm unable to find sufficient secondary sourcing for WP:NORG. Of the sourcing in the article, it's almost entirely primary. The only secondary sources are [17] and [18], neither of which provide sigcov on the org. Though it seems like their research is decently well-cited [19], I can't find any secondary sigcov sources. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reviewing the page.

I have made improvements to the article, in particular finding new secondary sources with adequate coverage of the charity. Roughly half of the sources used in the article are now secondary.

If it is still deemed that the article is lacking in secondary sources, perhaps a fair resolution to this would be to change the 'Article for deletion' template to a 'Primary sources' template?

Thank you very much. Rob235711 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Hardware and Design Alliance

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

I couldn't find secondary sources with sufficient coverage to establish notability. The best I could find was that [20] mentions them in passing and says they folded "some time after 2010", similarly [21] mentions them to say they've been "discontinued". [22] mentions they 'resurfaced with the “Open Source Hardware Certification” programme of the Open Source Hardware Association in 2018' but doesn't source that or give further info.

When I tried to PROD the article a year ago, User:Jueneu said on the talk page they were still active but I can't find any significant coverage since then, just some self-published content around "ohanda.one". JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources that would qualify this for WP:NORG. Appears to be defunct and was never particularly notable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Open hardware. The organization does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT for a standalone article, but a mention at Open hardware seems to be warranted given it has been (briefly) discussed in reliable sources such as [23] (published by Oxford University Press) or [24] (published by Taylor & Francis). MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Open hardware per MarioGom. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holafly

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

This appears to be a basic summary of a non-notable commercial operation - no assertion of notability is made, and the service it provides is routine / non-innovative. A mention in a list of eSIM operators would seem sufficient. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SeoR (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:PRODUCT. An in-depth review in TechRadar - [25] - in-depth coverage in Levante-EMV - [26] - and La Vanguardia - [27] - is enough to pass WP:GNG threshold as well. 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Young Freemen

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

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRITE). Current citations are almost entirely routine or minor mentions, many of them in publications by related institutions. Paul W (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Keep

I oppose deletion. The Guild of Young Freemen article meets both the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and WP:ORGCRITE for organizational notability.

1. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources

The Guild has been featured in respected publications beyond trivial mention, including:

Financial Times, referring to it as a “popular association” among City Freemen.

The Times, which has photographed and referenced Guild members during livery events.

BBC, which includes the Guild in Lord Mayor’s Show coverage.

City Matters, the City of London’s newspaper of record, with multiple pieces highlighting the Guild’s involvement in civic life (Sheep Drive, Pancake Race, inter-livery charity work).

The Field magazine — one of the oldest hobby and sporting publications in the UK — has mentioned the Guild alongside other historic Livery Companies in its coverage of City traditions.

2. Public civic role

The Guild plays a formal part in the annual Lord Mayor’s Show, where its members escort the traditional figures of Gog and Magog. It was founded in 1976 by the City of London Corporation to engage younger Freemen. Recently, it entered a long-term partnership with the St John Eye Hospital Group, reflecting its charitable mission and continuing relevance.

3. Notable alumni and impact

The Guild has served as a launchpad for individuals who have gone on to serve the City, such as:

William Hunt, founding member and later Windsor Herald of Arms.

Alastair King, current Alderman and Lord Mayor of London (2024–25), who serves as the Guild’s patron.

Several Common Councilmen and civic figures who identify as alumni or close affiliates.

The Guild also works with livery companies on public events and charitable activities, reinforcing its embedded role in City life.

4. On par with comparable articles

There are other Wikipedia articles on City institutions like the City Livery Club and Guild of Freemen, some of which have less sourcing or less civic visibility. The Guild of Young Freemen is no less notable than these examples. Deletion would be inconsistent with how other comparable pages are treated.

5. Good-faith editing and room for improvement

The article was drafted by me (under the username ReclaimEC1) as part of a journalistic initiative to improve coverage of overlooked but historically relevant civic bodies in the City of London. I acknowledge there may be tone issues, but these can easily be corrected through collaborative editing. I intend to expand documentation on other underrepresented Livery Companies and Common Councillors across Wikipedia.

Conclusion

The Guild of Young Freemen is notable, historically rooted, publicly active, and covered by multiple independent, high-quality sources. It deserves to remain on Wikipedia. Improvements should be made through editing—not deletion. ReclaimEC1 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources", please cite them.

I did a Google search for news items, and found nothing significant.
The BBC Lord Mayor's Show coverage is passing mentions. It does not focus on the Guild. Participation in a big event does not make the Guild notable
The 'launchpad' argument is spurious - per WP:INHERIT.
'Comparable articles' argument is irrelevant and unconvincing - per WP:OTHERSTUFF.
Sorry, but WP:HARDWORK is no reason to retain a subject that fails GNG.

I note a draft article on the same subject also exists - Draft:Guild of Young Freemen - maybe focus on improving that to the point that it is acceptable.

I also note your intention "to expand documentation on other underrepresented Livery Companies and Common Councillors". This would be welcomed, so long as the subjects meet GNG, ORGCRITE and NPOL - several of the recently created Common Councillor articles do not meet the latter criteria and have been nominated for deletion.

Paul W (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Paul W, for your thoughtful engagement. I appreciate the scrutiny, and I agree we should hold all content to GNG and related standards.

Re: your question on significant coverage — here are some independent, reliable sources that reference the Guild of Young Freemen in more than a passing way:

The Times (18 May 2015): Announcement of the appointment of a new Master of the Guild. This was printed in the announcements section — a public record of officer appointments in civic institutions.

BBC: While BBC coverage of the Lord Mayor’s Show often highlights the overall event, the Guild appears in broadcast footage as escorts of Gog and Magog (e.g. BBC London News, 13 Nov 2021). Though mentioned briefly, the Guild’s official role is confirmed independently on the Lord Mayor’s Show website, which states:

“The giant willow figures… are escorted by the Guild of Young Freemen, founded by the Corporation to encourage participation of young Liverymen in the affairs and traditions of the City.”

The Feltmaker (Worshipful Company of Feltmakers): A 2022 issue notes the Guild led participants across London Bridge during the Sheep Drive, confirming their ceremonial role beyond internal mentions.

Range Magazine (15 May 2025): The latest issue includes a feature on the Guild, discussing its history, civic involvement, and charitable work, including partnerships with Livery Companies and the St John Eye Hospital Group.

These references collectively meet GNG by showing significant, independent, and non-trivial coverage. They demonstrate the Guild’s consistent involvement in high-profile civic traditions and charity, backed by third-party sources.

As for the draft — yes, I only noticed it afterward. But since the live page already exists (not created by me), it makes sense to improve it rather than duplicate work. I’m happy to help merge, edit, or polish content as needed.

Lastly, thank you again for taking an interest. I genuinely hope you’ll consider helping improve these articles with me rather than proposing deletions — we’re all here to expand access to accurate, verifiable information, especially about historic institutions that are often overlooked. Constructive collaboration always makes the project stronger.

Referenced Links

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/archive/article/2015-05-18/12/0.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-59266028

https://lordmayorsshow.london/2023/procession

https://www.feltmakers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Feltmaker-2022.pdf

Range Magazine (15 May 2025 – print only; article available upon request or via City libraries) ReclaimEC1 (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot comment in detail on the Times mention (paywalled) or Range Magazine (though both sound to be the result of Guild PR/marketing, which may render the coverage unreliable). The Lord Mayor's Show mention is not really independent (there is a clear connection between the Show and the Guild). The Feltmakers link is broken, but I intuited it might be the 2022 magazine - there is a passing mention (but not significant coverage). If you see fit, please edit the article (there may be additional sources in the Draft article) so that other editors can take a view. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you interesting conversation, I appreciate the help and tips and have begun making changes. I thank all who are working on this together. Miceofbankstation (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (yet I will cycle back to see if better sources have been found). I have not found any independent sources that are substantially about this guild. Most of the sources here are announcements of events that merely name the guild but say nothing about it. That is not sufficient for notability. I'm not sure how to assess the sources from other guilds, but none are substantial (mainly name-checks or single sentences) so it doesn't really matter. A few of the sources here do not mention the guild at all -- such as the St John one. I did searches in The Guardian but found no mention, in spite of a (dead) link here. Lamona (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Guild of Young Freemen meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and the criteria for organizations (WP:ORG). It has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources beyond trivial or routine mentions. For instance:

The Guild’s origins and civic purpose are documented by the Guildhall Historical Association, describing its foundation in 1976 under the auspices of then-Lord Mayor Sir Robin Gillett to engage young people in City affairs.
The Lord Mayor’s Show website, an independent resource, identifies the Guild as an official participant, historically escorting Gog and Magog—demonstrating long-standing ceremonial involvement.
External charitable organizations such as St John Eye Hospital Group have acknowledged and publicized the Guild’s multi-year charitable partnerships, reinforcing its activity and recognition beyond internal City institutions.

These sources demonstrate verifiability, institutional relevance, and sustained activity in the public realm. While improvements in tone or additional inline citations may be warranted, this does not negate the article’s validity. Per WP:ATD, issues of style should be addressed through editing, not deletion.

Given its historical significance, coverage by independent sources, and its embeddedness in City of London tradition, the article satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Recommend retention.

–– Miceofbankstation (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third Republic of Vietnam

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

Delete or merge to the article of its leader, Dao Minh Quan. Article topic fails WP:ORG, as all the reliable secondary sources provided only mention the government-in-exile in passing as an affiliation of opposition figures who were arrested. None of the content about the group itself is cited (i.e. its institutions, activities, organisation, etc.), and I was unable to find reliable coverage for it online or in local print. Yue🌙 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Vietnam, and United States of America. Yue🌙 19:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to have engagement in the discussion with consensus reaching per participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really not sure what to do with this. The page as it is shouldn't exist for notability and fringe reasons, but the sources suggest the political group behind it is notable and that doesn't have an article. Redirecting to Dao Minh Quan is perhaps a stopgap, but it is not ideal. CMD (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yue I can see that I'm not the only editor who didn't found sources about its institutions , activities , organisations etc...

Researches were made in English and in French (My native tongue) but unhappily not in Vietnamese.

I don't know Vietnamese. Anatole-berthe (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Sixth) (RJM group)

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

Single source. Neither reliable nor significant. No online coverage about this union. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Only 1 source and that is also archived. Agletarang (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ there is some in depth coverage here and independent coverage here and here, there is news coverage of them [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] some of which contain in-depth coverage of the electoral mechanics and factions in the organization. Clearly notable. --hroest 20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are mistaken. There are other such unions with similar names. Plz make sure you search with exactly same name ( Sixth) RJM group. If you find anything with that particular name , plz let me know. There are many unions with initial name All Nepal National Independent Student Union but here sixth and RJM group is also included which lacks notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, the sources I found indeed seem to be for a similarly named but different organization. ---hroest 11:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rastriya Janamorcha as a new section titled "Youth wing". Yue🌙 05:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable movement. An organization with 59 district branches is not insignificant. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based solely on reliable secondary coverage (or lack thereof, i.e. WP:ORG), this article should at best be turned into a redirect to a section of their parent organisation's article. Size is irrelevant; there are Final Fantasy XIV clans with more than 59 regional branches. Yue🌙 17:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no significant discussion or consensus here yet. The arguments are of keep, delete and merge at 1 each vote after another keep was striked out. No significant mention of policies and their relevance. Discussion sought for a consensus would be whether WP:TOOSOON if there is minor or no notability or should be kept per WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rastriya Janamorcha as a new section titled "Youth wing." As a stand-alone page, this fails WP:GNG, but as there is verifiable information, this could be added to the parent page. --Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Revolutionary Students' Union

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

Article doesn’t cite any article neither it has online coverage. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nepal Workers Peasants Party as a new section titled "Youth wing". Yue🌙 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nepal Revolutionary Students' Union, a.k.a. Nekravisangh, is a major organization. It has declined in the past, but it was the dominant student movement in Bhaktapur for many years. --Soman (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nepal Workers Peasants Party. There is some WP:ROUTINE coverage, especially if you search with the native name. मल्ल (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party of Greens

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

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C 679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existing political party nominated for deletion? What is this? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party had representation in the Czech Parliament, albeit briefly. Of course it's notable, and there are a number of secondary sources on the Czech article. It just needs expansion/translation. Jdcooper (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - the Czech article at cs:Demokratická strana zelených – Za práva zvířat cites 16 references. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you see this as a snow keep considering the number of references is no indication of notability, plus the fact that this party has never returned any candidates at an election? C 679 07:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that someone is considering indication of notability? We keeping all parties. This is not living persons. How do you for example see this article Ondřej Štursa as notable with two links? ThecentreCZ (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties are subject to WP:ORG. There is no Wikipedia policy to have a page on every political party. C 679 11:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "every political party", but it had representation in the Czech parliament. And the Czech article about the same topic has plenty of sources which can be used to expand this one. Jdcooper (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The supposed representation in Parliament came from "two Green MPs, Olga Zubová and Věra Jakubková". In Norway at least, it is impossible to formally switch parties during a term, so if you leave your party, you become independent. If this is the case in CZ as well, then the party was not formally represented in Parliament. Geschichte (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not the case in CZ. These two MPs were sitting for this party. Jdcooper (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the clarification! Geschichte (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Women and Youth Empowerment Centre

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

Fails all notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Kpg jhp jm 07:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Windsor Residents Association

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

This neighborhood association and quasi-political group with two affiliated members on a local English borough council does not pass WP:NORG or even WP:GNG. Most of the sources here are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and the secondary sources that exist (here or in a WP:BEFORE search) are merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the organization, not WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to mention that there also exists an article for the Old Windsor Residents Association. It is a very similar organisation to WWRA: they are both residents associations with two members on the same council, and have received a similar amount of coverage in local media. So, it would make sense to either keep both or delete both, as they have effectively the same level of notability. Infinite Hydra (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL, or in the alternative, redirect to an appropriate target. I'm all for neighborhood associations - I was secretary of mine in Albany, New York, for several years. But there's no assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep mainly because I suspect that the reasons given for deletion so far are probably based on transatlantic misunderstanding? I don't think a UK RA (political party) is quite the same thing as a North American neighbourhood association? Certainly this one is little different to the rest of Category:Locally based political parties in England – most of those also need some work, but I don't think the news coverage of their borough council contributions fits the trivial mentions criteria. Joe D (t) 15:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it should be treated as a political party, what sources can you show that offer WP:SIGCOV? I haven't found any, and anything that is said to pass WP:GNG requires that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Chasi Kalyan Samiti

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

Non notable NGO. Otherthan some passing mentions, there is zero significant coverage about this NGO. Also, all the sources mentioned talks about it’s parents organisations Bangladesh Jamaate Islami. Notability isn’t inherited. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passing mentions? To you even in-depth sources are passing mentions i have seen, it can mention Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, what's the problem, the topic is indeed covered, read WP:Before and it clearly passes WP:GNG BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not even 2 months old, give me some time to improve the page and rest alright? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This only source might be somewhat significant coverage. Other than that, there is zero significant coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources for this organization to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Please show me three best sources that provide significant coverage, are reliable, and independent of the subject, I will withdraw my nomination. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its best that you apply WP:B before you nominate articles for AfD, recently i set a limit where I have to make each of my articles pass WP:GNG in atleast 15 months if sources are found, now this article i was still checking on to see if it passes Wikipedia policies, you used to nominate several of my articles for deletion, some actually made sense because many were just passing mentions (here) but slowly the quality of reasons of your AfDs have been decreasing, just my opinion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that meet notability? Please check the article or these are the sources for you, here, here, here, you can check other sources in the page too, if you want proof that the publishers are reliable then, see this. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why you think I didn’t check before nominating. I’m sorry, but the three sources you provided is not significant coverage.

জামায়াতী এনজিও চাষী কল্যাণ সমিতির মাধ্যমে জঙ্গী অর্থায়ন - somewhat significant coverage, talks about how jamatee funds throug this organisation
জামায়াত-শিবিরের অঙ্গসংগঠন কীভাবে চিহ্নিত হবে? - passing mentions
8 held for allegedly financing militancy through NGO - passing mentions

With this, I cannot say that the organization meets the criteria of WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't passing mentions only mention the name and nothing else about the subject? Example: She worked here, and there is no other information, following sources do provide information, after taking a semi-break from November to December 2024 from Wikipedia, i returned in 2025 and i check each article i am trying to make and i do not try to add passing mentions, i try to add in-depth sources, also can i give a recommendation, it would be nice if you looked for sources yourself online or offline, I as the author here created this article but I cannot always add information, I also have school, assignments, homework, exams, it would be nice if others contribute before nominating it for AfD. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One or two lines in a news article do not constitute significant coverage. I looked online, but unfortunately, I couldn't find any substantial coverage about this organization. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The given sources i have showed do not include only 1 or two lines, not all sources will have the chosen headline, information can be spread out and if it does give information and in-depth, i think its okay. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clear that we do not agree on the sources and it's WP:SIGCOV. I’ll leave it to others to judge. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but others should give a clear reason, saying delete per nom is not enough and violates purpose and instructions under a AfD, Swamping delete votes without a proper reason especially when the article has been nominated without passing WP:Before is not applicable. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And even after the AfD, I am looking for sources both online and offline through multiple browsers, apps, and asking from newspaper circulators or authors of reports. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop saying "the article has been nominated without passing WP:Before"? As I said above, I looked online, but unfortunately, I couldn't find any substantial coverage about this organization. It’s good that you added more sources, but please note that all of them are just passing mentions/one sentence. E.g.

জঙ্গিবাদে অর্থায়ন: গ্রেপ্তার ৮ - One sentence, nothing substantial.
Limits of Islamism and Jamaat-e-Islami in Contemporary India and Bangladesh- Mentions, nothing substantial.
8 held for allegedly financing militancy through NGO - Two sentences, nothing substantial.
পমহাদেশের উজ্জ্বল নক্ষত্র মাওলানা আবুল কালাম মুহাম্মদ ইউসুফ রহ. অধ্যাপক মুজিবুর রহমান - Mentions, nothing substantial.
200 couples married in mass ceremony in Bangladesh - Just one sentence—othing substantial.
Civil Society Responses to Changing Civic Spaces- One sentence, nothing substantial.
The Rohingya Crisis Mapping the Conundrum and Challenges of Peace Building: Selective South Asian Perspectives - Mentions, nothing substantial.

-- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Any problem? From your replies, i got the information that you should've done a WP:Before before the AfD, during the AfD may cause issues because the nominator may have a bias against the given sources, plus no its not one sentence, There are atleast a few passing mentions but more than 4 sources are in-depth about the organization, not all sources will be like 190 pages about the organization, it gives the needed information, i can nominate several pages of yours by applying your very own comment, saying that oh only "passing mention", " sources don't mention much, only 2 sentences" length of the supported text in the sources as long as it is enough for SIGCOV and in-depth coverage, is okay, it can cover a topic about some other event, that doesn't decrease its reliability. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added several in-depth sources which are already in the page and some passing mentions too, length of the supported text doesn't have to be a full book, just enough to establish SIGCOV and in-depth coverage. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial comment says it doesn't pass SIGCOV and sources talk about Jamaat, what's the problem here? We have already commented on SIGCOV but on Jamaat, it doesn't matter if sources talk about Jamaat-e-Islami and then Chasi Kalyan Samiti, after all, Chasi Kalyan Samiti is the peasant wing of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the source can mention its parent organization, your initial comment failed to prove how it is insufficient. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No independent notability beyond parant organization. Sources show routine or trivial coverage.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really? No independent source? Im not sure, If this keeps going on, even notable topics will be deleted in the name of passing mentions, plus even if it covers Jamaat-e-Islami, isn't this the peasant wing of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, why would Jamaat not be mentioned? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closest thing to significant coverage are six sentences in a 2018 Dhaka Tribune article about the alleged embezelment of $43,000 from the organization. A 2020 Janakantha article adds that CID has recommended that the Bangladesh NGO Bureau cancel the organization's registration, but otherwise just reiterates the first article and says the investigation is ongoing. Rounding out the three best sources, according to BangladeshiEditorInSylhet, is a Bangla Tribune article. It contains the same three basic facts as most sources, plus a quote from the organization's website, and says it may or may not be banned by the government as an affiliate of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. The government fell a few days later, so it's unclear if it was or is banned, or whether the alleged embezelment from the organization will ever see trial. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. The deepest coverage of this 48-year old organization in a book is a single sentence. The author has cited a dozen sources, but they're mostly passing mentions of the same basic facts. That may be why he has only been able to squeeze five sentences of content out of them. The topic does not meet WP:NORG; there is no substance for a stand alone article. A merge to the parent organization, as an alternative to deletion, is the best course. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider, among other options, the merge suggestion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Rugby Union

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

Amateur sporting organization which does not assert WP:GNG. I found sources online that it exists, but nothing that was third party, independent, nor reliable. Flibirigit (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby union, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Guild of Music & Speech

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

Exam fails WP:GNG. Sources are nothing but primary sources. GTrang (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Education, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GTrang,

thanks for flagging this. Have briefly revised the page with some further secondary sources to demonstrate some notability. Very best, Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My source-quality scanner picks up "possibly AI-generated slop", flagging all references except 1, 4, 6. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant if ChatGPT is merely used assess the quality of secondary sources? The article has a clear chain in its edit history and is obviously not AI-produced. Saltysuperbananafruit (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in google news or books. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that until 2024, this organisation was named the Australian Guild of Music Education, so most sources will be under that name. I am currently looking for sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravelets

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search. Although they have a considerably large social media following, it does not contribute to notability. No secondary coverage found that would satisfy WP:NORG or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, United States of America, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a decent amount of the coverage that was there in 2016 - including some of the sources I used in the article itself - have disappeared in the last decade. It's a shame I can't see the Austin.com article anymore. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the jewelry company may be notable, I will try to search for additional sources.--Amlikdi (talk) 07:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{NCORPcheck table}} and {{NCORPcheck}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent Content?	In-depth?
Fortenbury, Jon (19 September 2014). "Austin Company Bravelets: Helping Families In Need, One Piece Of Jewelry At A Time". Austin.com.	This is an infomercial and relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs	No in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
Daniels, Diane (3 March 2014). "How Does She Do It: An Interview with Stephanie Hansen, Founder of Bravelets". an everyday occasion.	This is an interview with the founder and relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs	No in-depth information contained in remaining independent content
N/a (2 May 2014). "Bravelets: Meaningful Jewelry Making a Big Impact". Colon Cancer Alliance Blog.	It is a blog, so fails WP:RS. Also it is an interview with the founder and relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or execs	No in-depth information contained in remaining independent content

Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The references are either primary sources or rely entirely on interviews with the founder. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia

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

Non-notable academic society. Lacks RSs and seems unlikely any would exist. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Social science, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no indication of notability and can't find a suitable target for a merge/redirect. I considered whether the article could be rescoped to be about the Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia, but that doesn't seem to be notable either. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMC Automotriz

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

Car manufacturing company that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Half of the sources cited in this article come from company's own website, while others are very short mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Venezuela. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not fully decided on the !vote, but there's quite some coverage in independent sources, especially about production issues, worker strikes, and a major acquisition operation [33][34][35][36][37][38]. Also covered in in a book about the Panama Papers [39] but I have not accessed it so not sure the extent of it. MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a minor car seller in Venezuela, but still significant, representing all Hyundai sells. The article needs a lot of work and has mostly primary sources. However, there are many sources showing enough coverage. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing this as WP:NCORP. It is a manufacturer of multiple models, but what is it notable for? Many manufacturers of cars and car parts do not get their own article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindful of WP:WHATABOUT. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackMiami

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be promotional in nature, as evidenced by its edit history and previous discussions at Articles for Deletion. A cursory search reveals that the subject, H477r1ck, is actually James Ball, who serves on the board of HackMiami. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given HackMiami's status as a for-profit organization with a history of using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes, notably to advertise their conference. Furthermore, the article contains citations that are either unreliable or missing altogether, which compromises its overall reliability and neutrality. In light of these issues, I recommend deletion of this article. LauraQuora (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist, hoping to have additional discussion for whether keep/delete or other to have a clear consenus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sol Foundation

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)

More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [40] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [41], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [42], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [43]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Paranormal, Politics, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Guideline for establishing notability in this instance is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). 5Q5|^✉ 11:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion. Regardless of individual beliefs about UAPs, the topic is widely covered by mainstream media, government sources, and academic commentary. Wikipedia’s role is to document verifiable information, not to judge its validity. Deleting well-sourced content undermines neutrality and public access to information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. To describe Dr. Nolan as an 'enthusiast' is a deliberately biasing term meant to diminish. Such derogatory language should not be used in a delete argument per rules. Dr. Nolan is a noted research scientist. Of one wants to describe a noted scientist with nearly 400 peer reviewed papers as an enthusiast, then one might also say Chetsford, the person proposing this deletion, is an enthusiast for anti-science propaganda. The Sol Foundation has now published several pure research papers on the subject of NHI (which by the way is mentioned in the UAP Disclosure act as put forward by Senators Schumer and Rounds) multiple times as a global definition of not just the idea of "aliens" but also any other non-human intelligence that might have originated on Earth prior to humanity. The pogrom driven by Chetsford, LuckyLouie and others is a malicious attempt against freedom of information and should be resisted. TruthBeGood (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC) — TruthBeGood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Very Strong Keep I have edited my keep and refactored the prior discussion below. The article has substantially changed since this was nominated. This was the Reference section when The Sol Foundation was sent nominated to delete:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288083567#References

I have now added sources including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford Courant, Catholic News Service, Aleteia, Rice University, Newsweek, Daily Express, PopMatters, Society of Catholic Scientists, la Repubblica, Focus (German magazine), Niconico, La Razón (Madrid), Sunday World, Futurism, the International Social Science Journal, and more, and still have more yet to go through when I have time. This is the References section now after 39 edits by me:

* Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733#References

* Live: The Sol Foundation#References

Here is all current sources sorted against WP:SIGCOV: Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

That is coverage from seven (7) nations: the United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and Japan. I think this is now a trivial keep and the AfD should be withdrawn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [44] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [45] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers: Please pay attention to this.

Your La Razon remark is completely made up of whole cloth and your imagination. Why would you do that? Did you think no one read the content? The La Razon article says, "Inspirados en proyectos científicos y divulgativos, como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nollan con la Fundación SOL, o en Francia UAP Check, los miembros de UAP Digital y UAP Spain prevén la próxima creación de un Panel de expertos multidisciplinar que impulse el debate y el estudio científico sobre los Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados en territorio europeo." That translates to, "Inspired by scientific and educational projects, such as the one launched by Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation, or by UAP Check in France, the members of UAP Digital and UAP Spain plan to create a multidisciplinary panel of experts to promote debate and scientific study on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena in Europe." Which is the citation for, "La Razón credited the Sol Foundation with having inspired similar research ventures in Spain."

How is that a "a title quote attribution to its founder"? La Razón explicitly credits the SOL Foundation itself, not just Garry Nolan or its title, as an inspiration for UAP Digital and UAP Spain’s planned expert panel. The sentence structure in Spanish--"como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nolan con la Fundación SOL"--clearly attributes the project’s inspiration to both Nolan and the SOL Foundation as entities, not merely using the Foundation’s name as a descriptor. There is no valid counterargument because the conjunction "con" ("with") grammatically links Nolan’s action to the SOL Foundation as an active collaborator or source of the project, making it impossible to interpret the Foundation as a passive or incidental mention.

The nominator has substantially misdiscribed everything. Did you notice how many of the sources are notable enough to have deeply complex Wikipedia articles themselves? The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is a bad source for the topic of a foundation studying UFOs? Some of the sources are thorough and entire pieces on the SOL Foundation. Some are brief but relevant mentions, and all of them were picked because they were relevant and contributed to Wikipedia:Notability. Look at my user page. I don't mess around with sourcing; this was something I did rapid fire because we simply needed to demonstrate notability, not build a complex 80k+ article... yet.

Remain Very Strong Keep. Parse all of nominator's remarks carefully for accuracy at this time. I don't know what is going on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage in a debate as to whether the six word phrase "Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation" constitutes WP:SIGCOV. But I acknowledge and appreciate your obvious passion for this subject. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Everyone knows that not every article source needs to be WP:SIGCOV. The point today is I have demonstrated breadth and scope of Wikipedia:Notability, with articles from global scales, from long to short pieces, to some that are significant and some that are minor. That's still notable. You can't minimize major international publications. You have not demonstrated in any way that The Sol Foundation lacks notability. There are still more sources, and more content (multiple citations for some) to pull out of the sourcing I've already added. There is no such thing as an AfD qualification or requirement that the article has to be in any sort of advanced state of development. Please be honest with our peers and fair. Very Strong Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [46] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What version of the site are you even looking at? Hartford Courant, Focus, Sunday World, the Catholic ones, AIAA, and so on? I challenge you, here and now, to show me exactly where Substack is used as a source, or else withdraw the AfD and recuse yourself from this article going forward, in perpeuity, with no option to undo that, and it will be enforced by other Admins? Do you agree?

Here, the current version right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733

Show me exactly where the text string "substack" shows up anywhere in that article. Do you agree to my terms? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [47].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what you are compelled to judge against:

I have been exceptionally clear that I am arguing against the live, production sources. You arguing against what I previously linked here and did not use in the article is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the live article now, and what is in the article now trivially meets Wikipedia:Notability and particularly, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not, again, what I linked and withdrew on the AfD. What is now live. This article passes AfD now trivially. If you are unwilling to address all the sources, you are not arguing per policy, and 'good faith' becomes questionable, as you are then arguing against non-acceptable criteria which is not policy. We are all slaves here to outcomes. That includes the nominator. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated my remarks with newly found evidence.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong Keep -- Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort:

EDIT 1: Upgrading to strong keep. I'm already integrating these. The PopMatters article (link) is literally an entire piece devoted to the Foundation and their Symposium just by itself.

EDIT 2: I'm still finding more sources. Google Sol Foundation without quotes, add various flags like +Nolan, +UAP, +research, +UFO, +military, and so on--there's plenty. I again stand by this being an easy keep. I'm already adding sources to the live article, and there's plenty more I can add in the next few days. Have at it, all. It is unclear how OP missed all these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 3, again reaffirm my Strong Keep; I've added yet more sources, and here is the current references section: The Sol Foundation#References. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.popmatters.com/sol-foundation-symposium-ufos-uap

https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1348

https://mitechnews.com/guest-columns/sol-foundation-releases-17-videos-from-ufo-conference/

https://substack.com/home/post/p-142904928

https://www.courant.com/2023/11/22/how-a-stanford-professor-aims-to-organize-the-hunt-for-alien-life/

https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/serious-physicists-are-talking-about-ufos-what-changed

https://exopolitik.org/hochrangige-insider-beraten-ueber-die-zukunft-der-ufo-offenlegung/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/issj.12484

https://nowcreations.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/10-Reasons-to-Consider-the-Possibility-of-_Beyond-human-Intelligence-No-11-Sept-2024.pdf

I see more mentions yet on Google News and Google Scholar that are required to be considered. Premature nomination. Just because an article is a stub that no one has had the time or energy or will to build from available data doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted based on not being "done".

I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[48]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable.

It's also obvious "not just The Debrief" as sourcing, which is not a disallowed source in any event under any rational or widely accepted rules nor precedent or RfD or discussions anywhere. Keep for The Sol Foundation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford reference doesn't mention this at all, "exopolitik.com" is clearly not RS, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers is not RS, a PDF on the website of a guy in Ohio named Vince who works on "raising the consciousness of the planet as part of the Universal Life Force" [sic] is not RS, etc., etc., etc.
"I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it?" Based on the sources you attached to your Keep !vote here, I'm very tempted to look at it. Chetsford (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS are out of place at AfD. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Remain Keep. Hartford Courant, Poptech, Mitechnews, First Principles, the social science journal, what's already in the article and I stopped on sources after a few pages. A topic doesn't require sourcing to be WP:GNG that means it can grow beyond a stub. A stub-level topic can be perfectly notable, and no rule says or ever will say otherwise. Keep. Also, you need to change your needlessly aggressive tone and stance, along with the routine WP:Civility boundary-pushing threats you have been applying to your recent spree of UAP-related AfDs after the Harald Malmgren AfD debacle you initiated that led to Jimmy Wales getting involved due to your actions. From an Administrator, it is grossly inappropriate. You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Chetsford's consistent use of biased terms reveals a strange anti-knowledge bias. Further, Chetsford's characterization of Nolan running a "UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan" dismisses the fact that SOL is an accredited 501-c3 which has garnered several million dollars in funding, ran 2 symposia, been the focus of dozens of news articles (as noted by others), etc. is further indication that Chetsford is running a non-scientific and biased agenda not based on Wiki rules but on his personal belief system. Professor Nolan is a world-renowned immunologist, founder of several successful companies, has dozens of US patents to his name, etc. so the purposeful use of derogatory language is reason alone for ignoring his arguments. Frankly, at this point given his past actions against Malmgren it is a surprise he does not lose his editor status and be banned. TruthBeGood (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, have you had the opportunity to review the rewritten article?
- The Sol Foundation#References
- Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
It's almost completely redone since the AfD and youre !vote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-stating my delete !vote for the record. If it's required, as it seems to be á la mode, call it a Very Strong Delete. The article has been expanded in byteage, but the sources are of no better quality, unfourtunately, so WP:HEY doesn't apply (as an example of WP:HEY in an AfD, see for example at Becky Sharp, for Nations of 1984 or in Concordat of Worms, et al.). As has been established by the nom's thorough analysis of the new sources, few of them are both independent or indepth. None support the claims made to WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG, while support !votes themselves seem to rely on non-policy based arguments (e.g. BUTITEXISTS, an argument to avoid, using WP:OR to analyse sources' claims, and suggesting that all opinions given equal weight). And that's ignoring the continued questioning of other editors' motives. The keep !votes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, greater in number; they are, equally unsurprisingly however, weaker in policy. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated aspersions from now-indefinitely blocked editor

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per rules please point out exactly the aspersion cast. Don't claim you want sources while not providing any specifics. Chetsford and others have already been chastised for their behavior. Pointing this out is not an aspersion, just a fact. Now-- to policy...

Arguing policy: Under WP:GNG an article is retained when independent, reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage—coverage that is neither trivial nor purely routine. The Sol Foundation article meets that threshold: a feature story in the Hartford Courant profiles the group’s formation and scientific aims, offering far more depth than a press notice; Newsweek devotes several paragraphs to the Foundation’s inaugural symposium and quotes its mission statement in the context of national UAP-policy debates; the Daily Express, Sunday World, and Germany’s Focus supply further analysis of its policy recommendations. Because these outlets have no editorial connection to the Foundation, each instance satisfies WP:RS and demonstrates the independence required by WP:V. Taken together, the sources show sustained, serious reportage—not fleeting mentions—so the article clears GNG without difficulty.

WP:ORG presumes notability when multiple reliable publications discuss an organization in detail, and the Foundation easily qualifies. A culture-journalism treatment in PopMatters chronicles its November 2024 symposium and describes the think-tank’s research agenda; a peer-reviewed paper in Wiley’s International Social Science Journal cites the Foundation’s role in advancing UAP scholarship, establishing academic relevance; trade coverage in Aerospace America and mainstream religious press such as Catholic News Service document its participation in government-civic forums. That range—from metropolitan newspaper to peer-reviewed journal—confirms breadth of interest across sectors and disciplines, negating any claim that the topic relies on press releases or fringe blogs. Because Wikipedia evaluates notability by what independent authors have written, not by the subject’s fame, the clustering of these independent, substantive sources fulfills both the letter and the spirit of WP:ORG; deletion would therefore contradict core inclusion policy.

Under WP:NPOV the encyclopedia must represent all significant, verifiable perspectives without editorial prejudice. The existing Sol Foundation article does exactly that: it reports the group’s origins, research aims, and public activities strictly as described in independent secondary sources, while attributing any evaluative language—positive or skeptical—to those sources. There is no advocacy or promotional tone; where reliable outlets raise doubts the article can and should include them in proportion, preserving balance. By contrast, deletion proposals that dismiss the foundation as a mere “UFO club” or label its founder an “enthusiast” introduce pejorative framing not supported by the cited coverage and thus clash with NPOV’s prohibition on subjective language.

Removing a well-sourced article because some editors question the topic’s legitimacy would itself create a neutrality problem: it would excise documented information from mainstream newspapers, journals, and trade magazines, leaving Wikipedia’s treatment of UAP research incomplete and skewed by omission. NPOV requires that content be judged on the reliability and independence of its sources, not on individual editors’ attitudes toward unconventional subjects. Keeping the article therefore upholds neutrality by presenting verifiable facts for readers to evaluate, whereas deletion would substitute editorial bias for documented evidence—contradicting both NPOV and the broader principle that Wikipedia “does not censor topics that are reliably sourced, even if controversial or fringe.”

Opponents claim the article “fails GNG” because its citations are routine or incidental, yet the record shows multiple feature-length, independent pieces—Hartford Courant profile, PopMatters symposium report, Newsweek analysis, Wiley journal article—that exceed the “significant coverage” threshold in WP:GNG and satisfy WP:ORG’s requirement for reliable, third-party sourcing. Those who invoked WP:BEFORE overlooked or dismissed these sources; the assertion that such material “obviously won’t appear in any journal or book” is disproven by the peer-reviewed ISSJ paper. In short, the corpus is more than adequate, and routine mentions are supplementary, not foundational. Labeling Hartford Courant, Newsweek, or Wiley as “none of any quality” misstates WP:RS; these outlets are plainly reliable under policy, and their presence confirms notability.

Other objections collapse on closer inspection. The article does not “lean on” The Debrief; even if that site were excluded entirely, mainstream and academic coverage remains plentiful. Claims of promotionalism ignore that the text is fully attributed, neutral in tone, and free of puffery, whereas the deletion rationale itself applies pejorative language (“UFO club,” “enthusiast”) that violates WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:ILIKE/IDONTLIKE dictates that editorial sentiment is irrelevant; Wikipedia retains topics documented in reliable, independent sources regardless of their perceived seriousness or controversy. Because those sources exist in abundance and the article can be readily refined to reflect them, deletion would contradict core inclusion policy rather than enforce it.

Applying the consistency principle embedded in WP:N, Wikipedia should judge the Sol Foundation by the same sourcing threshold that has long sustained analogous entries. Earlier UAP bodies such as NICAP and CUFOS were retained once magazines like Time and major newspapers profiled them; the Sol Foundation already matches or exceeds that level of coverage, with features in Newsweek, Hartford Courant, PopMatters, and a peer-reviewed Wiley journal. Comparable new ventures—Harvard’s 2021 Galileo Project, assorted think tanks, and niche NGOs—have been kept on the strength of a handful of reliable articles in mainstream or specialist press; the Foundation’s two well-reported symposia, plus national and international reportage, clearly meet that same bar. To impose a higher standard merely because the topic involves UAPs would contradict WP:ORG’s call for uniform treatment across subject areas.

Wikipedia also favors improvement over excision. During the AfD one editor added additional mainstream and academic citations, after which the article unambiguously satisfied WP:GNG; policy dictates that once independent coverage is shown, remaining disputes—e.g., over one Debrief citation—are resolved by normal editing, not deletion. Finally, WP:V reminds us that inclusion rests on what reliable sources publish, irrespective of whether the work is speculative or controversial. The encyclopedia already hosts entries on paranormal institutes, alternative-medicine centers, and To The Stars Academy precisely because significant independent coverage exists. The Sol Foundation now enjoys a comparable evidentiary record; deleting it would depart from established precedent and apply an inconsistent, topic-specific gate that policy expressly rejects.

Strong keep. The Sol Foundation unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG: mainstream and academic outlets—Hartford Courant, Newsweek, PopMatters, Wiley’s International Social Science Journal, among others—provide non-trivial, independent, and reliable coverage. All statements in the article are verifiable (WP:V) from these high-quality sources (WP:RS), and the text is written in an even-handed, fact-based style that satisfies WP:NPOV.

Objections centered on alleged source weakness or routine mention collapse once the full reference set is examined; a handful of marginal citations cannot override the weight of substantial reporting. Policy favors improvement over deletion, and the article has already been fortified with additional reliable citations during the AfD. Removing it would excise well-sourced information and create a gap in Wikipedia’s treatment of contemporary UAP research, contrary to the project’s mandate to document notable topics neutrally and comprehensively. TruthBeGood (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG ^talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [49], etc.) and on X (e.g. [50], [51], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.
- The Sol Foundation#References
- Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV
Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|^✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Among the newly added sources like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, etc., which do you think are the best examples that prove SIGCOV here? Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

I've assembled this here for users to review. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments made by LWG and 5Q5. The article's improved substantially since nomination and good RSes have been identified. An an aside, remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs. National Catholic Reporter and The Debrief aren't RSes for the existence of God or UFOs, but they're fine to verify specific groups of notable people have joined together to promote a shared belief. Noting that someone believes in Sasquatch isn't actually a argument for deletion: Ghosts, Ghost rockets, and the Holy Ghost are all 100% encyclopedic topics. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs" I'm not familiar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just an aside. GNG is met per LWG and 5Q5. More abstract discussion is for some other page.Feoffer (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sorted list in Talk:The Sol Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV captures enough of the primary criteria in WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria to justify keeping the article. WP:HEY and WP:ATD also appear to have helped the quality of the article improve in the past week. Tschieggm (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)— Tschieggm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The article passes WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:N, and WP:SIGCOV. This has been evidenced by the above posts of Very Polite Person, Feoffer, and LWG. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Evaluation. The article has changed considerably since the nomination with the carpet bombing of a dozen new sources into it. As nominator, I'm obligated to evaluate them to determine if the nomination should now be withdrawn. Based on my evaluation (below), I affirm the this article fails WP:ORGCRITE. We would need at least three sources that are across-the-board green (reliable, independent, and significant in coverage) as per WP:SIRS. As per SIRS, several sources that meet 2 of 3 criteria don't add together to create a single quality source. After one year of efforts, we still can only scrape together one.

Source	WP:INDEPENDENT	WP:RS	WP:SIGCOV	Notes
The Central Minnesota Catholic	Yes	Maybe	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation
Marin Independent Journal	Yes	Yes	No	Article is about organization's founder Garry Nolan; contains one sentence mention of Sol Foundation
Rice University "Archives of the Impossible" conference website	No	Maybe	Maybe	Two sentence mention of the Sol Foundation in the speaker bio for Garry Nolan at a conference at which he was speaking
Newsweek	Yes	No	No	Consensus-determined unreliable source per WP:NEWSWEEK
International Social Science Journal	Yes	Yes	No	One sentence mention of The Sol Foundation in this 33-page article
popmatters.com	Yes	No	Yes	WP:USERGENERATED entertainment website
. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Society of Catholic Scientists	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
la Repubblica	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
Focus Magazine	Yes	Yes	Yes	Report on the club's conference
Niconico	Unknown	No	Unknown	WP:USERGENERATED video sharing site a la YouTube
La Razón	Yes	Yes	No	Another one sentence mention
arXiv	Unknown	No	Unknown	Community-determined unreliable per WP:ARXIV (preprint hosting service)
The Debrief	Yes	No	Yes	The Debrief is the new website landing page for the podcast of ghosts/cryptozoology/ESP/flying saucer blogger Micah Hanks. While presented with an attractive new skin and under the headline "science and tech", it's the same pseudoscientific entertainment fanzine. Recent podcast episodes have uncritically discussed remote viewing [52], Atlantis / Lemuria [53], Thunderbirds [54], "The Deep State" [55], and Ancient Aliens-style cruft [56].
Sunday World	Yes	No	No	The Sunday World is a tabloid news outlet a la WP:DAILYEXPRESS and regularly peddles a variety of 'weird news' type articles. There's just a one sentence mention, in any case.

Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your source evaluation, you left out Aleteia (2 mentions), Hartford Courant (3 mentions), The_Byte (3 mentions). WP:NEWSWEEK says: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." WP:ARXIV says: "generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts." The arXiv paper was written by subject matter expert Matthew Szydagis, a university physics professor who is also a member of UAP orgs. This is a lot of media coverage for a foundation less than two years old. Even if the article were to be deleted, it will surely be republished. Just tag it at top with {{more citations needed}}. 5Q5|^✉ 12:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [57] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this narrow point, I gotta side with Chetsford. If we let everyone with a Phd and ARXIV qualify as a SME expert, we'd be lost. It's not "scientifically important", that's a red herring. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, The Debrief is reliable in the very limited context of profiling a like-minded organization. No one questions that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one questions that the group exists. Indeed, no one does. But see WP:BUTITEXISTS. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll reword. Not to put too fine a point on it: no one questions The Debrief's reporting that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existence ≠ Notability Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one here has suggested otherwise. At issue is whether Debrief functions as an RS in the very limited context of profiling an association of notable people with admittedly fringe beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [58]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, it's a complex source, but look just at the matter at hand. Is there any reason their 'reporting' is mistaken or erroneous about who is in the organization and what they've said in the direct quotes? Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. We can't undertake the WP:OR needed to analyze the veracity of specific claims. The only thing we can say for certain is it doesn't meet our standards of reliability. Chetsford (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User's assessment of Popmatters is factually completely wrong; it's like saying the "New Yorker" is USERGENERATED because they take open submissions. They clearly have editorial control as seen here. From our own sourced article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters#Staff:

PopMatters publishes content from worldwide contributors. Its staff includes writers from backgrounds ranging from academics and professional journalists to career professionals and first time writers. Many of its writers are published authorities in various fields of study.[2][7] Notable former contributors include David Weigel, political reporter for Slate,[8] Steven Hyden, staff writer for Grantland and author of Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?,[9] and Rob Horning, executive editor of The New Inquiry.[10] Karen Zarker is the senior editor.

As I said above, assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles in direct opposition to sourcing guidelines. DO NOT take either of us at our word. Take the articles and facts at their word, and remember we are compelled to live and die by Wikipedia rules alone here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding them later:

Please evaluate these too and attempt to be accurate. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not tenable. It's the third time you've apparently Google searched "Sol Foundation" and blasted every responsive link into this thread as purported proof of SIGCOV then demanded we prove each one isn't. The San Francisco Standard is addressed in the OP. Word on Fire Catholic Ministries is obviously not RS. Your approach is not conducive to a coherent discussion.
"assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles" This is the third time you've pivoted from discussion into attacking the motivations of individual editors. I would again strongly encourage you to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I'm not personally offended by your ongoing aspersions, they're just derailing to the AfD. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word on Fire is patently WP:RS to discuss a topic of 'Would Extraterrestrial Intelligence Disprove Christianity?'. Again, as I demonstrated to all above with the La Razon example that you utterly mischaracterized--and that finding is incontrovertible--you're doing something here that is problematic. The article passes notability for the small scale of the article that we have. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, as you seem to be tilting at increasingly tall windmills. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD closer: nominator has NOT rebutted my revealing they misrepresented Popmatters in their table, because that alone with the rest pushes this into basic trivial Notability compliance. That's why it's such a problem to them getting a successful deletion here; at that point the article subject will always be notable going forward. Diff here; there is no possible policy-based counter-argument to diminuize the Popmatters piece or present the site as not fine for WP:RS. This alone resolves the AFD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have, thus far in this discussion, scattered more than two dozen different sources into the wind including unambiguously non-RS ones like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, and a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers. It's easier for you to take a pass through Google Search and shotgun any URL you find into the discussion than it is for me to offer rebuttal after surrebuttal for why each of these random links don't pass any realistic threshold of sourcing. So, if I stop responding to any particular item, assume it's for no other reason than I simply can't keep up. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling this table. I'm not sure I agree that a source is unreliable for information about the existence and nature of a pseudoscientific UAP organization simply because the source also publishes similar pseudoscience. If anything it would be reason to scrutinize whether the source is truly WP:INDEPENDENT. But I haven't seen any reason to think that The Debrief is unreliable on the question of whether The Sol Foundation exists and is notable in the realm of UAP-related orgs. Also, as 5Q5 pointed out, you seem to have omitted the Hartford Courant and Aleteia citations, both of which seem to pass all three criteria. By my count the Focus, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIRS, and the citations to The Debrief, arXiv, and the organization's own website pass the lower bar of being appropriate for inclusion, if not necessarily for establishing notability. The reason my keep vote is weak is that all the significant coverage about this org seems to relate to a single symposium they hosted in 2023, while the repetition of that event in 2024 doesn't seem to have gotten much if any coverage. There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct". But I'm not there yet. -- LWG ^talk 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct"" WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Either it's notable or it isn't. It's not going to become non-notable in two years. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but my weak keep vote isn't because I think it's notability might change, it's because I think it's notability is borderline and further information might convince me that it never was notable. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even though I voted keep, the article was a mess. I took a buzz saw to it to clear out the distracting material that will have to go anyway if this closes with keep. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just notification on a relevant matter: Chetsford put in an RfC on the reliability of The Debrief. In the Discussion, they say: "A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS." I would imagine the referenced AfD is this one, (Personal attack removed). Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben.Gowar: How many times do you have to be warned not to cast aspersions? I am sick and tired of your underhand, snide and generally all-round bad faith questioning of Chetsford's motives. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that my talk page is a better place for those descriptors. In the case of this AfD, I'm mostly trying to keep interested parties informed of consequential RfCs. Especially if the AfD "turns" on it. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are persistently failing to assume good faith, peristently castining aspersions and then persistently sealioning when called on it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [59] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either this AfD is "presently turning on whether or not this is RS," or it is not. You have stated that it is. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it obviously is; read the above comments -- its name has been invoked 21 times. But that's an entirely separate matter from the RSN listing. Once again, the RSN discussion will run 30 days. This AfD will close somewhere in the next 5-14 days. Nothing that happens at RSN will have any impact here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem convinced there are these far-reaching plots converging on certain subject matter. I'm at a loss as to what I can do to convince you that's not the case. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases (AfD and the RfC), the reliability of The Debrief is in question. Interested editors should know. As far as the RSN discussion having no "impact here," that seems improbable given that AfD readers interested in the reliability of The Debrief may indeed look at the RfC (regardless of whether the discussion has run 30 days or not). I suppose there's the possibility of no immediate impact, if no one looks or no one references it (but the transparent nature of Wikipedia seems to render that improbable).

In any case, if the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, then the RfC will probably have an impact on the article later (especially if The Debrief citation remains). So, editors interested in this article should know. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cakelot1's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't intended to study this article, but all the vituperative, handwaving ad hominem shouting by Keep enthusiasts convinced me that I should. Having done so, I am satisfied that there are no serious reasons for keeping it, and that Chetsford is correct. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty much agree with what LWG, 5Q5, and Feoffer have said. The article's definitely gotten better since it was nominated (WP:HEY), and sources like Focus Magazine, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia look like they give us enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS for WP:NORG. Notability might be on the edge, but it seems good enough for now, and anything else that needs fixing looks WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some regular editing. Deleting it now feels a bit much with the sourcing we've got and the chance to improve it more. Omegamilky (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Of the sources that I find reliable and more coverage than one sentence (Hartford Courant, Aleteia, Focus), the first covers the founding; the second and third cover the organization's conferences in 2023 and 2024, and give a short mention of the organization. This feels WP:TOOSOON for an article, where the subject has not reached the threshold of notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sympathetic to this argument, we don't need to be covering every RECENT update about the UFO world. But where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together? That's the primary information I'd want readers to be able to reference: who is in which UFO "Supergroup". I know I certainly can't keep it straight without a reference. Feoffer (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Wikipedia's job to track membership in different UFO organizations? How does this work with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" (WP:NOTDATABASE)? For reference, I don't think Wikipedia tracks membership on boards of different corporations and nonprofits, even if that information could be interesting. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the members weren't notable and their association not covered in RSes, it'd be an easy delete. But it's a group of eight notable individuals who have biographical articles and RSes do report on the collaboration between them. Feoffer (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this seems to be a textbook WP:NOTINHERITED argument. Chetsford (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument, per above, is that SIGCOV exists, not that it's inherited. But for those not swayed about a dedicated article, the alternative would seem to be redundantly covering the association in the eight separate bios, which seems... suboptimal.Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose there were eight siblings who were independently notable under WP:BIO. Suppose they share a similar Early Life section with the same parentage. Are their parents therefore also notable? I think not. Whether or not this article exists, editors can make a judgment on whether to include association with the Sol Foundation on the other bios.

Assuming that WP:SIGCOV does not exist (which is how we started this thread, with "where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together"), noting an association across multiple bios is not a problem. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I don't believe an article about an organization like this, who pushes fringe UFO theories, should exist without critical sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unidentified_flying_object#United_States_2. Sourcing does not look particualrly strong. Newsweek probably most independent one. But overall, don't think that this is enough to esatablish notability - which seems borderline. I looked at this a few times and the best I could come up with, besides deleting, was a merge until more coverage by stronger sources for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep this is a matter of considerable public interest. The article is supported by valid references and can continue to be improved. The Sol Foundation exists. There is increasing suspicion that a group of editors on Wikipedia are conspiring to traduce or remove articles on the UFO topic. People are openly stating they suspect intelligence agencies are manipulating Wikipedia and have agents involved in this process to remove information on the subject from the public sphere. Recent edits of the article on Harald Malmgren have been discussed and suspected of CIA involvement. The legitimacy of Wikipedia as a neutral source of information is coming under serious question because, as Orwell once said, "omission is the most effective form of a lie". We must be better, we must allow a range of information which is of interest to the public, if it can be supported by third party sources. There are enormous articles on this site about wiping your bum (literally) and songs that failed to make the final in Eurovision ten years ago. There are thousands of frivolous pages pon this site which are not questioned and yet the UFO topic - which is a matter of Congressional investigation - is continuously brought down and questioned. It is a serious matter.Aetheling1125 (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly being a "matter of considerable public interest" or the fact that WP also hosts articles on Eurovision Song Contest songs are not valid Keep reasons, nor is your claim [60] that "there is a clique within Wikipedia seeking to control information". The claim that the CIA is suspect of editing Wikipedia is also not a valid Keep reason. Chetsford (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aetheling1125, I've also argued above that the article should be kept. But there's absolutely no need to look at this as a "high-stakes" conversation, much less to invoke Orwell. The organization may be covered on its own page or it may be covered elsewhere (like the pages of its members or a page about UFO groups). No one is suggesting it be omitted entirely! Feoffer (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MouseCursor ^{or a keyboard?} 13:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with most of the source evaluation table (including Chetsford's follow-up comments). I find it rebuts a lot of the keep arguments made before it, and after it I'm not really seeing much of a (policy-based) argument to keep. I think the one point where I differ is that I don't think PopMatters would fall under WP:USERGENERATED. That and Focus seem like the stronger sources. LWG's and Feoffer's argument that The Debrief's reporting could be used to establish notability is...not realistic. The additional sources provided later by Very Polite Person plainly don't meet WP:SIRS, and bringing up a source already covered in the nomination is a pretty obvious example of bludgeoning this discussion. I don't envy the admin who ends up having to ~~control information and awareness using Wikipedia policies~~ wade through all this to figure out consensus. hinnk (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry Nolan. I agree with Chetsford's source evaluation table and most of the sources appear to focus on Nolan. The stand-alone page of Nolan already includes references to the Sol Foundation. --Enos733 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I flagged the article with {{more citations needed}}. If the foundation is less than two years old and all it needs is one to three better refs, perhaps give it until the end of the year, then renominate if no change? Seems like the article is destined to be republished per WP:RADP if deleted. 5Q5|^✉ 11:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another option could be to draftify the article now and republish when/if more sources become available. -- LWG ^talk 12:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry Nolan. There are plenty of passing mentions to show that it exists, but aside from copypastes of press releases and sensationalism e.g. The DeBrief, it's a WP:NOTJUSTYET situation. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories