Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.

Purge page cache watch

Organizations deletion

[edit]

St John's Wood Road Baptist Church

[edit]
St John's Wood Road Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is short, sourced only from the subject's website, and has at times been edited to read as a website for the church. I don't believe the article establishes notoriety (e.g., 50 members, lacking secondary sources). Mad Jim Bey talk 22:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Healthcare

[edit]
European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Healthcare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD (contested by a since-banned user without explanation). Lacks any evidence of notability. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Commodities Exchange

[edit]
Romanian Commodities Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rejected draft at Draft:Romanian_Commodities_Exchange which was created in mainspace by draft author. No indication of meeting WP:NORG and I also think it has AI-generated text throughout. qcne (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. qcne (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, tendentiously created after rejection at WP:AFC, totally fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback. I would like to clarify that this article was not created with any intention to bypass the AFC process. Instead, after the draft rejection, I gathered a series of independent, reliable, and in-depth sources to better support the subject’s notability.
    The Romanian Commodities Exchange (BRM) has been featured extensively in respected Romanian financial publications, including Ziarul Financiar, HotNews, Profit.ro, and Economica.net, with coverage on Andra Tobosaru (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But you specifically did bypass the AFC process, @Andra Tobosaru qcne (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to ask if it is possible to move the current version of the article back to Draft space so I can continue improving it with more independent, reliable sources, including:
    Official documents and reports from institutions like ANRE, the Ministry of Energy, and ACER,
    Media coverage from Ziarul Financiar, HotNews, Profit.ro, and Economica.net,
    And recent analytical content published on platforms like Zenodo.
    My intention is to submit it properly through Articles for Creation (AfC) after further improvements.
    Thank you for your understanding and guidance. Andra Tobosaru (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andra Tobosaru Unfortunately it can't be moved back to draft since the draft already exists. If this article does get deleted on mainspace, I'd really recommend working solely on the draft in draftspace. Drafts are not deleted unless they haven't been edited in over six months. You can work on it in draft and try to gather sources. qcne (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sources are produced by them or otherwise largely based on what they say. S0091 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The draft as written straddles the line between an essay and an investors' brochure. I will also assess the sources used in both the article and the draft.
Since I'm very sceptical the Zenodo source is anything but what it claims to be (essentially a profile of the company), nothing here helps with eligibility. The bad sourcing, promotional writing, and essaylike structure each by themselves would be enough to delete; all three together are damning. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Left Opposition of PCE

[edit]
Left Opposition of PCE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I searched and found https://www.academia.edu/36395195/Radical_Left_in_Portugal_and_Spain_1960_2010_ but that is not enough to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalig Debate

[edit]
Kamalig Debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently founded college debate organization, can't find sourcing that would help it pass GNG or NORG. Sources one through three is the tab from the group's tournaments, sources four though 7 are its own Facebook posts. Article was almost certainly generated by a LLM, first iterations contain instructions for the human author to follow and the writing is very promotionally-worded. Suggest TNT, even if notability can be eeked out. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 23:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy)

[edit]
Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or redirect to Revolutionary Communist International. The article at present has no in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Of the 13 sources given, 6 are from communist / leftist online newspapers and blogs, 4 are primary sources from the party itself, and 3 are routine electoral results and coverage. A web search of the party name and Italy (in English) and Partito Comunista Rivoluzionario in Italian yields no replacement or complementary sources.

The notability of its predecessors cannot be the sole or primary basis of the notability of the current organisation per WP:INHERITORG, but I could not find in-depth, reliable coverage for those organisations either. I doubt other editors will find in-depth coverage in reliable sources either given only one preceding organisation contested an election, and in it they achieved less than 0.1% of the vote. Extra-parliamentary activity like direct action is also unlikely to be covered in-depth by reliable sources either because of its non-notability. Yue🌙 21:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is one source that I think adds notability. [1] Czarking0 (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another borderline source [2] Czarking0 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another borderline source [3] Czarking0 (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched WP:TWL pretty heavily and did not see stuff of note there. Though this may have to do with publication times Czarking0 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are plenty of sources on this party, especially under its previous names. The group has a long history and deserves a Wikipedia article. Please note that also it.Wikipedia, which is quite stricter than en.Wikipedia regarding the notability of political parties, has a long article on the PCR. --Checco (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NK Grad

[edit]
NK Grad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur club, never played higher than third division. Cannot find any significant coverage - there is this detailed article about the club's history, but this is probably WP:PRIMARY since it is published on the official website of the Municipality of Grad and is therefore not independent. There are some other trivial articles and routine reports, like news about the club's new president and very short routine match reports. Cannot see how this passes WP:GNG. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Svet24.si has only covered them in a short routine match reports, like 1, 2, 3 etc., don't know if coverage like "they played the match, they won, and here are a few pics from the match" is enough for GNG. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but continued coverage in the sports pages is generally what makes a sports team notable, and online coverage only goes as far back as 2018 as far as I can tell. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

McAfee Institute

[edit]
McAfee Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There has been an ongoing debate (years) on the article's talk page about the notability of the company. Concerns were expressed around the type of citations and confusion with the company McAfee/the McAfee anti-virus software. Given the level of discussion, as a neutral 3rd party, I rejected a speedy delete nomination, deemed PROD inappropriate, and so I'm bringing it to AfD for community consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 15:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • fn2: cited - "Board Certifications". McAfee Institute. Retrieved 2025-05-30. Self-referential citations are not accepted as reliable sources
  • fn3 and f5 (point to same page): It is simply the directory listing ("Provider Information") at NICSS - giving name and address, etc of McAfee Institute. It does not verify the article's statement that "The programs incorporate theoretical content alongside practical case studies and application exercises"; nor does it verify the statement that "The Institute’s certifications are also listed in the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies (NICCS)." A concern about the NICCS listing, it that the Education & Training Catalog page says, "Add your courses to the Education & Training Catalog to gain exposure and support the mission to educate and train the Nation’s current and future cybersecurity workforce." (bold mine).
  • fn5 to Missouri site returns "404 page not found". No meaningful results found using the site search, so does not verify the article's statement that "McAfee Institute's programs are accredited ... by the Missouri Department of Public Safety."
  • fn8-fn11 - U.S. military: These link to the various U.S. military branches' COOL programs, but do not validate the article's statement that "McAfee Institute certifications are eligible for credentialing assistance under U.S. Department of Defense programs including..."
  • fn12: The article claims that McAfee's certifications "are also listed in the Government of Canada’s Cyber Security Certifications Guide". This is true, however, according to the Foreward of the cited document, "The guide provides information about many of the certifications available ... The intent is not to recommend any certification body or certification in particular, but to provide a listing of some of the different certifications that may help advance an individual’s career in the field of cyber security. Information is sourced from the websites of the certification bodies referenced in this guide. Disclaimer: The Communications Security Establishment does not endorse or recommend any of the certification bodies or certifications listed in this document. Information provided is intended to be a general summary of publicly available information and is provided for informational purposes only." (bold mine) Therefore, the certification listing came from McAfee, thus is self-referential to the certificates they provide.

— ERcheck (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



Keep – Thank you for opening this discussion and for the opportunity to address concerns collaboratively. I’d like to clarify a few key points regarding notability, reliable sourcing, and the nature of cited recognitions:

Comment on Citations: 1. Notability through Significant Independent Coverage (SIGCOV)

The article includes multiple independent, reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage of the McAfee Institute:

  • Inc. Magazine featured McAfee Institute in a full-length editorial piece focused on its impact in human trafficking investigations and cybersecurity education — not a press release or paid submission.
  • Police1 listed McAfee Institute among key training providers for law enforcement combating cybercrime.
  • ThoughtCo included it as a resource for cyber investigator education.
  • Indeed referenced McAfee Institute certifications in law enforcement career development content.
  • Henry Stewart Talks, Global Investigations Review, and the ACM Digital Library cite McAfee Institute in professional and peer-reviewed academic contexts.

This breadth of independent domain-specific recognition across law enforcement, education, research, and media demonstrates notability under WP:GNG and WP:ORG.

2. Government Recognition and Credential Eligibility

While some references (e.g., NICCS, COOL, Canadian Cyber Guide) are directory-style in format, they are not simple self-submitted listings as stated. It's critical to understand that inclusion on government-operated platforms such as NICCS and COOL is not a passive directory listing. These programs require providers to undergo formal review processes to ensure alignment with federal workforce frameworks (such as NICE), verification of curriculum integrity, and justification for federal funding and promotional eligibility. These listings are not granted lightly and serve as meaningful, externally validated recognitions — not promotional claims or self-submissions.

  • NICCS (National Initiative for Cybersecurity Careers and Studies) is operated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Providers are vetted to ensure alignment with the NICE Cybersecurity Workforce Framework and federal training initiatives. Entry requires meeting content, relevance, and mission alignment standards — not simply submitting a link. From their website:
“To ensure consistent quality of courses within the Education and Training Catalog, NICCS created a set of vetting criteria. This criterion ensures that the courses offered by organizations are recognized as providing quality resources while not excluding small or medium-sized organizations.”
  • The COOL (Credentialing Opportunities On-Line) programs — including all U.S. military branches — list McAfee Institute certifications as eligible for credentialing assistance and promotion points. These listings require formal review, a strict vetting process, and are supported financially by military branches for career development.
 * Army COOL – Certified Cyber Intelligence Investigator (CCII)
 * Navy COOL – CCII
 * Air Force COOL – CCII
 * DoD Civilian COOL – CCII
 * Coast Guard COOL – CCII
 * Marine Corps COOL – CCII

All programs are linked to specific Military Occupational Specialties (MOS), are government-funded, and help with promotions — demonstrating relevance and selective government recognition, not self-listing.

  • Canada’s Cyber Security Certifications Guide, published by the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, includes McAfee Institute certifications. While the guide includes a disclaimer, it is a government-issued resource and the listings reflect relevance in workforce development. From the foreword:
“Information is sourced from the websites of the certification bodies referenced in this guide…provided for informational purposes only.”
This indicates indirect referencing, but not that the content was self-written or self-endorsed.

3. Accreditation in Missouri – Easily Verifiable

While one editor noted a 404 error for the Missouri Department of Public Safety link, accreditation is verifiable:

4. Consistency in Source Evaluation

An article from “The Arkansas Post” — a non-established, single-author platform with unclear editorial oversight — has been cited in the past despite lacking the transparency or reputation required under WP:RS. If that level of scrutiny is to be applied to the article’s citations, it must be applied equitably to all sources — including those from Inc., Police1, or peer-reviewed academic references.

5. Community Consensus and Constructive Engagement

This article has experienced repeated changes and removals over the years. Some past versions may have lacked rigor, but current sourcing reflects substantial improvement. As such, the decision should be based on the current version and informed by community-wide consensus — not individual editor discretion. If needed, I support a Request for Comment to solicit broader input.

Conclusion

McAfee Institute meets the notability standard through sustained, independent coverage across media, academia, and government listings. The citations are appropriate to the article’s claims and align with Wikipedia’s content policies. Improvements can always be made to sourcing or formatting, but deletion is not the solution. Therefore, I respectfully recommend: Keep.

ResearchPolicyGuy (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acting International

[edit]
Acting International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bringing this to AfD since it can't be speedied under A7. The article is built entirely on primary or self-published sources with nothing that offers independent or significant coverage. Did a quick search online, and everything out there is just passing mentions. Junbeesh (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Acting International has operated since 1980 and is a long-standing bilingual drama school in Paris with verifiable alumni, including internationally notable actors such as Julie Gayet, Michelle Yeoh, Daniel Craig, Keira Knightley, and Milla Jovovich. These individuals are reliably sourced via IMDb and widely covered elsewhere. The school is cited across independent actor biographies and agency listings. While broader secondary coverage is currently limited, the institution meets WP:ORG for its longstanding operation, influence on notable individuals, and verifiable contributions to the performing arts. Improvements have been made to ensure neutral tone and accuracy, including clarifying that some award mentions (e.g., New York Movie Awards) are part of the indie/online circuit.

Enjoyman (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal A cricket team

[edit]
Nepal A cricket team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than the WP:ROUTINE coverage, thus fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Just played 3 official international matches, WP:TOOSOON anyways... Vestrian24Bio 09:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mason County Historical Society

[edit]
Mason County Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was originally created in 2007. In June of the same year, it was mentioned on the talk page that this article was likely not appropriate for Wikipedia, namely under notability. A Google search on this Society lists either primary sources or self-published sources. It is also noted here in 2016 that this article violated WP:COPYPASTE in an older version of the article, requiring cleanup. Unfortunately, based on all the available historic evidence and available sources (or lack of reliable ones), I think deletion appears to be the only logical option currently. 11WB (talk) 07:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Business and Society

[edit]
International Association for Business and Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Not seeing any indepth coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veronte Autopilot

[edit]
Veronte Autopilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Zuck28 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bandini Formula Three

[edit]
Bandini Formula Three (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

17 year old unsourced article, struggling to find any independent sources that offer anything more than a passing mention to show notability (though given the age of the subject there may be something in offline sources).

Article has a number other issues such as being too technical and with poor grammar in places that may be salvageable, however the name and edit history of the article creator suggests that the article was written by someone affiliated with the company with some of the statements in the article failing to meet WP:NPOV. Giuliotf (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Itihas Parishad

[edit]
Gujarat Itihas Parishad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability as an organization. - The9Man Talk 07:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Sounds Recordings

[edit]
Signature Sounds Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company does not show indication of adequate significant, in depth, independent coverage to meet WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 05:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "Indie Label Spotlight: Signature Sounds--Jim Olsen" Zollo, Paul.  The Performing Songwriter; Nashville, Tenn. Vol. 7, (Jun 2000): 70.

(2) "Exec Profile: Jim Olsen - President: Signature Sounds Recordings" Kaufmann, Andy.  Music Connection; Glendale Vol. 39, Iss. 7, (Jul 2015): 22.

(3) "Mark Erelli hopes his 'Compass' on Signature Sounds will lead him to new fans" Morris, Chris.  Billboard; New York Vol. 113, Iss. 4, (Jan 27, 2001): 18,24.

(4) "Market expands for indie folk labels" Horak, Terri.  Billboard; New York Vol. 109, Iss. 2, (Jan 11, 1997): 3, 15+.

(5) "Giving thanks: Signature Sounds celebrates 20 years of success in Northampton" Munro, Stuart.  Boston Globe; Boston, Mass.. 28 Nov 2014: G.28.

And so on. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Erik:,
Which of these sources do you believe meets WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV? I was able to access three of the five you listed. Can you describe the other two?
Graywalls (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for assessing those sources. Yes, too much of them are just quotations from Olsen. As for the other two,
  • The first source I don't have full-text access to, but ProQuest gives the following synopsis: "Profiles the independent folk label Signature Sounds that was founded in 1995 by Jim Olsen. Explains that the Northeast label's focus is on the "burgeoning local folk scene" and that the label's biggest challenge "was to gain a national profile and to find a distributor beyond the Northeast region.""
  • The third source is an 1100-word article in Billboard about how Mark Erelli's album is being promoted. In several paragraphs it discusses Signature Sounds' strategies, including ones the label has used for other artists. Admittedly, much of it again is of the "Olsen says" variety, but I think it's got some significance from the perspective that Billboard chose to interview him about the topic.
Overall, not a whole lot of significant coverage now that I'm looking at it more, and taking into account your assessments. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Erik:, so do you have a !vote one way or the other? Graywalls (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I haven't found any significant coverage to the subject (namedrops, casual mentions, PRs and primary sources aside), and I have access to better sources than most; I very literally live about seven minutes walk from Signature Sounds' storefront. With that, let's not conflate sources mentioning the record store (which would likewise fail ORG by a country mile) with this minor label. Ravenswing 14:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Wanderjugend

[edit]
Deutsche Wanderjugend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources and I wasn't able to find any on google news. Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Crescent Society

[edit]
New Crescent Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should never have been accepted. The history is full of editors who declined this because of its language (AI-created); I can't judge that, but I do know that we have a bunch of poorly verified factoids about a non-notable organizations, with a bunch of sources that don't even mention the subject but are synthesized into the article. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, Astronomy, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (disclosure: I approved the AfC): After reviewing most of the sources, I found that the organization does have significant secondary coverage, and I did not find any hallucinated references. As much as I dislike LLM-generated articles, this one at least appears to have undergone enough human cleanup to be a reliable article based on real sources (I did not look at earlier versions). I did not encounter any sources that don't mention the subject, but I could have missed some as I did not verify every last reference. It could use some work, and the article is longer than many of the cited sources, but it clears WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • WeirdNAnnoyed, which decent, reliable, secondary sources mention the subject in any significant way?? The Al Jazeera article doesn't even mention the group! Drmies (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The articles in Religion Media Centre (Ref. 10) and The New Arab (Ref. 17) are both substantially about the organization and appear to be reliable. I partly retract my last statement, as many of the references in fact do not mention the organization but are about moon-sighting in general. I do think a lot of the text and references in the article could be cut. But two independent sources is generally enough to clear WP:NORG if I'm not mistaken. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Religion Media Centre and The New Arab articles are secondary sources which heavily write about the article which is all that is needed acording to the guidelines. The other articles provide some background into the topic of moonsighting and the organisation as a whole. They have now also undergone a clean up, there was no need to flag this for deletion. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your concerns about the language used and this will be addressed in future edits however all text used in the article is accurate, reliable and impartial mostly based on the secondary sources. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 03:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reason you mentioned; the history being full of editors who rejected it for it's language was before the article underwent a massive human cleanup and rewritten. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further secondary sources alongside the two mentioned above now include Muslim Heritage and another article from the religon media centre written by a different author. There are also other sources such as from the Royal Museums Greenwich's website which speak about the planetary and astronomy shows and the annual Ramadan moonsigthing events hosted by the royal Observatory Greenwich. The Mayor Of London/London Gov website in the events section also mention these planetary shows alongside a seprate mention of the society being directly involved in the planning and preparation of various events inclduing the light up show of the London Eye something which has been written in the article and referenced with this. TruthKnowledgeSeeker2025 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNN Roxas

[edit]
GNN Roxas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BEFORE search brings up only wikipedia mirrors, website is expired. There's no claim to notability in the article. I don't know why a defunct TV station would be notable but this is not it. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African Development Bank and Economic Reparations

[edit]
African Development Bank and Economic Reparations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another AI-generated article chockful of WP:SYNTH, created as part of that one Africa edit-a-thon (meta:Event:Africa_Wiki_Challenge_2025/AWC_List_of_Articles). The majority of the references are fictitious or do not support what the article is saying. Most of the article isn't even about the African Development Bank's position on reparations, and the section that is doesn't seem like it warrants its own article.

If actual reliably sourced info can be found covering this topic, then it can be added to the African Development Bank article, and this can be redirected there. ApexParagon (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Topic may be notable, but separating any kernels of meaningful information from this jumble of WP:SYNTH and mostly hallucinated references would be a herculean task. Rises to the level of WP:TNT. Zzz plant (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - many references (I have listed three examples below) are hallucinated by LLM. Strongly recommend WP:TNT. Were it to exist, I would have nominated this under the new speedy deletion criterion that is under discussion Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RFC: New CSD for unreviewed LLM content. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zondi, Siphamandla (2020). "Reparations and Africa's Development Agenda: Historical Justice and Economic Equity". Review of African Political Economy. 47 (163): 278–290.
    • Ramose, Mogobe B. (2014). "Justice and restitution in African political thought". Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 27 (1): 85–103.
    • Nkrumah, Kofi (2022). "Multilateralism and African Sovereignty: The Limits of Reparative Development". Third World Quarterly. 43 (6): 1150–1167.
  • Delete: The creator seems to have used AI to create several articles relating to reparations in Africa. It is better to delete these due to the fake references and potential hallucinated information. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dansk Almennyttigt Boligselskab

[edit]
Dansk Almennyttigt Boligselskab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject, while a big company, doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV and doesn't meet WP:NORG. Even the corresponding article in Danish doesn't cite any sources. TurboSuperA+(talk) 06:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Football Ultras

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bangladeshi Football Ultras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As pointed out in the first AfD a year ago, the article has a number of conflicts of interest, with accusations of paid interviews being used as fake sources, besides going beyond the scope of the project. Svartner (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis DFL

[edit]
Minneapolis DFL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability isn't established, content is POV, and edits were only made on the first two days of the page's existence (June 1-2). There's a lot of POV content here right now, which isn't well-sourced (e.g. ideology in infobox). In part, this article feels like a way to include POV claims about the DFL that would be erased sooner on a more-viewed page.

The History section is not especially specific to the local endorsing unit but rather to the history of the DFL and general history of Government of Minneapolis, repeating information already on, or better suited to, those pages, and is poorly sourced. The founding date claim in the infobox copies the state DFL, and "recent activity" just summarizes existing pages on those elections.

I propose MERGING the structure section, and possibly other relevant info, to the Party Organization section in Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (which could also mention other localities if needed), and MERGING composition history (currently under Election results section) to the election pages Minneapolis City Council and Mayor of Minneapolis. Some of the content here would do better as a general "politics in Minneapolis" page, which would be a more appropriate place to discuss political party strength over time. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MERA25 Hessen

[edit]
MERA25 Hessen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was deprodded with the rationale, "consider merge or redirect to MERA25 as preferred WP:ATD". However, like I always do prior to prodding, I did consider a redirect to MERA25, but it is not mentioned at that target, so that would be inappropriate. And there is really nothing of substance to merge. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce (company)

[edit]
Bounce (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There’s no evidence that this company meets WP:ORGCRIT. Nothing useful came up from a cursory search, and WP:GNG isn’t met either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Dempsey, Bobbi (2023-10-14). "'The App That Just Solved My Biggest Travel Problem'". Parade. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The review notes: "Using the Bounce app is super easy. Once you select your site, you indicate the number of bags, pay the fee and get confirmation. You’ll use the QR code in your confirmation to check in and again to pick up your bags later. ... I’d seen reviews of some locations mention security tape that would be wrapped through the zipper of your bag as a security feature, and while that wasn’t offered at the location I selected, my bags were securely closed and in the exact same condition when I retrieved them as they were when I dropped them off."

    2. Rosen, JJ (2022-11-13). "Why do we make a transaction? It's all about trust". The Tennessean. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "I had come across an app called Bounce that partners with local businesses that will store your luggage for a few hours for a small fee. The process is easy.  You simply search for a location, show up with the bags you need to store, drop them off, and be on your way.  “Why not?” I figured.  If I am OK with getting into a car with a total stranger, I should be fine leaving my suitcase at a retail store. But as I stared at the sign, I began to get cold feet. ... It started with marketing and branding.  The fact that I found the Bounce luggage storage app on the first page of Google made me feel that it was legit.  And the branding on their website looked clean and professional. From there, the technology took over."

    3. Elliott, Christopher (2025-03-09). "Can you trust Bounce with your luggage? This traveler is not so sure". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "When Lauren Labadie used an app called Bounce to find a place to store her bags in Marseille, France, she had every reason to believe she could trust Bounce - and that she'd see her luggage when she returned. And if something went wrong, she was confident that Bounce would stand behind its guarantee to compensate her for any losses. It didn't quite work out that way. Two of her bags went missing. ... Bounce is a luggage storage app that helps you find a secure place to leave your bags when you're on a long airport layover or after checking out of your hotel. It promises to alleviate the inconvenience of carrying luggage while you're exploring or running errands. The Bounce app offers more than 12,000 locations worldwide, and prices start at about $3 per day per bag."

    4. Pennington, Juliet (2019-11-10). "Need a place to store your luggage for a while? There's an app for that". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "Enter Bounce Bag Storage, an app aimed at solving this very problem. The free app allows users to locate businesses with which Bounce Inc. partners that will store their bags in a safe and secure place for $5.90 per bag, per calendar day. The items are secured with a coded zip tie and insured for $5,000 per bag. ... said Bounce cofounder Cody Candee, who came up with the idea in 2014, but who, along with business partner Aleksander Rendtslev, didn't launch it until 2017. Bounce Inc. is in nearly 20 cities across the country - including Boston - and in London. New cities - domestic and international - are being added weekly, Candee said."

    5. Bloomberg, Sara (2021-12-21). "Bounce brings on-demand luggage storage to more travelers with UPS expansion". San Francisco Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-12-21. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "Lugging around bags between destinations can be a pain point for travelers, and Bounce is expanding its global network of on-demand storage with the addition of UPS stores around the U.S. The San Francisco startup allows users to search for places to stash their belongings for a day in around 1,000 cities on every continent except Antarctica (for ostensibly chilly reasons). Just about any business with extra storage space and reliable hours could become a storage location on the service. It mostly contracts with places like restaurants, cafes, hotels, meditation studios and dry cleaners. Currently there are more than 6,000 storage spots on the platform."

    6. Schlosser, Kurt (2019-09-27). "Take a load off — temporary luggage storage startup Bounce launches its service in Seattle". GeekWire. Archived from the original on 2019-12-07. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "Bounce, the San Francisco-based startup that provides short-term luggage storage solutions, has launched in Seattle. Catering to anyone who doesn’t feel like lugging their stuff around town, whether they’re travelers or residents, Bounce partners with local businesses who provide unused space as temporary storage space. Online or via the app (iOS, Android), users can pick a location, reserve, drop off items and go — for as little as $5.90 per item."

    7. Partington, Miriam (2022-11-06). "This startup ditched San Francisco for Lisbon: why? Travel startup Bounce fled San Francisco in 2020 for the sunny shores of Lisbon. But what brought them here?". Sifted EU. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "In 2019, things were pretty sweet for luggage storage platform Bounce. They were headquartered in San Francisco, close to the storied Silicon Valley and home to some of the world’s top tech talent — and investors. Everything oozed that contagious, if slightly corny, "move fast and break things" startup mentality. Despite all that, Bounce packed its bags and moved to Europe — the motivation being to tap into markets like Italy, France and the UK. The company made the decision even before the pandemic sparked a San Fran exodus, beating some of their peers on the way out. Now, the majority of Bounce’s 45 employees have relocated to Lisbon, some of whom had never visited the city before and didn't speak Portuguese."

    8. da Costa Brookes, Cristina (2023-05-17). "Bounce joins the Lisbon Tech Rise". The Portugal News. Archived from the original on 2025-07-20. Retrieved 2025-07-20.

      The article notes: "Bounce is a Silicon Valley company, backed by Andreessen Horowitz that powers an impressive 9,000-location network of local businesses offering luggage storage and package acceptance. Bounce operates worldwide in North America, Europe, Asia and Oceania and in a growing number of cities across Europe. Bounce’s headquarters are located in Lisbon, where they operate in over 100 locations across the city. Asides from Lisbon, Bounce is also all over Portugal including in Porto, Faro, Albufeira, Portimão, Setubal, Cascais and even Ponta Delgada in the Azores."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bounce to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for finding those other sources @Cunard. I'm quite new here, should I update the article now or do I need to wait until a consensus is reached on whether or not to delete the article? Basvanbreuker (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Basvanbreuker:, based on the editing (promotional tone, etc.), I would advise not to edit at the moment. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable prior to editing further.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard:, I always appreciate your source assessments. Also keep in mind that we look for editorial oversight. The first two you listed are submissions by freelancers and likely associated with the company as is often the case with such submissions. These should be treated the same as WP:FORBESCON.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bobbi Dempsey's biography says:

Bobbi Dempsey is a freelance writer and the author of a dozen nonfiction books on topics ranging from poker to real estate investing. She has written for Parade’s print and online editions, and her work has also been featured in The New York Times, Family Circle, The Guardian and other publications. She is currently an editorial fellow at Community Change and a reporting fellow at the Economic Hardship Reporting Project ...

Bobbi Dempsey is an established journalist. I did searches for Bobbi Dempsey and Bounce and found no evidence that she is associated with them.

JJ Rosen's article appeared in the print edition of The Tennessean. JJ Rosen is a regular columnist in the "Business" section of The Tennessean. This is different from WP:FORBESCON articles which do not appear in the Forbes magazine. Since the column appeared in the newspaper, I think there is sufficient editorial oversight to make it reliable. I did searches for JJ Rosen and Bounce and found no evidence that he is associated with them. Cunard (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input on Cunard's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sussex Thunder

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sussex Thunder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of uncited claims. Multiple spots in the article with no information between several years. No information about 2002 refounding. Almost no secondary sources exist online, so the article fails WP:GNG. Very underdeveloped. Previously deleted due to copyright infringements. NotJamestack (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't understand why some participants are saying this subject is notable but not casting a Keep vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the sources added here
Czarking0 (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Council on Nanotechnology

[edit]
International Council on Nanotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Korfball Association

[edit]
Welsh Korfball Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to effectively be a poorly sourced duplicate of Korfball in Wales and would fail WP:NCORP anyway. The one news article gives the briefest introduction to the WKA, but also indicates how little known Korfball is. Relying, as it does, on primary sources and social media, I don't think there's an appropriate place deserved on Wikipedia yet. Time for this to be nipped in the bud. Sionk (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Professional Martial Artists

[edit]
National Association of Professional Martial Artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:N or WP:NORG, the only references include passing mentions at best. As the organisation appears to be defunct, it's unlikely any additional sources will materialise. JeffUK 21:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MATA Iis historic in that it’s the first Professional association for Martial Arts school owners. It’s set a very high standard that was welcome by thousands of Martial Arts schools worldwide. It deserves that recognition as the first period. 107.144.137.222 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable source providing evidence of that, having searched to the best of my ability. JeffUK 07:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of India (Marxist) — Tamil Nadu

[edit]
Communist Party of India (Marxist) — Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 16:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Internationalist Movement

[edit]
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Print sources that mention the group (that I could find) are limited to works authored by Maoists or which feature very brief mentions. To my knowledge the group did not do anything significant; most online mentions from unreliable sources like Marxist-Leninist and Trotskyist blogs note its members made a joint declaration (as most organisations would do), but nothing else. Yue🌙 05:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 05:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has dozens of articles on communist "internationals" like this one, see Category:International socialist organizations. I suspect that most of those organizations have received no more dead-tree coverage than this one. However these articles do serve a navigational function by grouping together political parties that agreed with each other enough to form an organization of this type. In that respect the section listing member parties is probably valuable to some readers and it's a shame to lose it. But WP:GNG is king so I don't expect this to be enough to save the article. In this particular case there's probably some worthwhile content that could be merged to Revolutionary Communist Party, USA if the article is deleted.Prezbo (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTADIRECTORY Metallurgist (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure how I feel about this. Seems a bit more substantive than the other two related noms, but seems barely notable. Metallurgist (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the six citations given, three are from unreliable primary / self-published sources and three are scholarly articles from the same author, Benoît Cailmail. Cailmail mentions the RIM in passing in all three articles as the theses of his works are on the communist movement in Nepal.
    Knowing the influence of Shining Path (one of its members) as well, I searched for mentions of Movimiento Internacionalista Revolucionario, but failed again to find significant coverage in reliable sources.
    The most likely place to find reliable coverage for an organisation most active in the 1980s and 1990s is in physical print materials, but I doubt that would be a fruitful search given the group did not do much together aside from having a publication, which many communist groups do. Yue🌙 05:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest a poor citation or stub tag. Nearly every group in RIM has been involved to some extent in armed revolution in their respective countries, with the PCP, TKP/ML, CPN(M), CPI(ML), and GRIA being the most notable. They're also notable as being the international group within which the primary basis for the ideology of Maoism was laid. Their "joint statements" (which they had many of in their 20+ years of intensive organizing) have influenced the current revolutionary movements in India, the Phillipines, Palestine, etc. Strongestsoldier465 (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your reasoning, new account with only three edits, each to an AfD I started. Organisations do not inherit notability from other organisations parent or subordinate to them. Your best counter would be to find reliable, in-depth coverage of the group, which I failed to do with my access to scholarly sources in the UBC Library.
    An alternative to deletion that I think would be appropriate would be a redirect too Marxism–Leninism–Maoism, as there is nothing reliably sourced in this article that can be merged into the target. Yue🌙 07:35, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I am not entirely sure. I was just saying it is more substantive. It does have 291 links to it, but most of those are probably from the template. The Mao one is a real link tho. I would support redirect and delete it from the template. Metallurgist (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit Fab

[edit]
Orbit Fab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable startup, the sources are only announcements and press releases. No SIGCOV in reliable and secondary sources. Fails Wp:NORG Zuck28 (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm undecided on this at the moment, but here is a BBC article that clearly provides coverage of use to demonstrating notability. SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep some of the sources like BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3wzlvnn2o are really good. The page has the potential to be saved and enriched with new references. --Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The BBC article consists mainly of company representatives talking about their own company, there is not enough independent coverage for WP:NCORP. The other sources are mostly routine coverage about fundraising, project announcements, partnership announcements, etc. that also do not contain enough non-routine independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indrashil University

[edit]
Indrashil University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. There is no independent coverage. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[4] [5] [6]

[7]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bolognatoday.it/politica/martedi-17-dicembre-presentazione-a-bologna-del-partito-comunista-rivoluzionario-12051956.html
  2. ^ https://www.ilbiviopomezia.it/local/nasce-il-pcr-a-pomezia/
  3. ^ https://www.triesteprima.it/cronaca/Gaza.html
  4. ^ "Cadila Pharmaceuticals and Indrashil University Launch Tailor-Made Executive Diploma to Bridge the Campus-to-Corporate Gap in Pharma, ETEducation". ETEducation.com. 1 October 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2025.
  5. ^ De, Rajneesh (16 April 2025). "'Our Vision is to Become an AI & Emerging Tech Innovation Hub that Offers Interdisciplinary Research, Industry-Driven Projects, and Skill-Based Certifications': Prof (Dr) Dharmesh Shah, Provost, Indrashil University". APAC Digital News Network. Retrieved 19 July 2025.
  6. ^ "Cadila Pharmaceuticals and Indian Red Cross Society to train 50,000 students in CPR and First Aid". The CSR Universe. 30 January 2024. Retrieved 19 July 2025.
  7. ^ "Indrashil University holds its maiden convocation". Suger Mint. 10 February 2022. Retrieved 19 July 2025.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are sources shown above that have also been added to the article; a review of them would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Equality Party (Australia)

[edit]
Socialist Equality Party (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable party that was deregistered due to lack of members. I was unable to find any significant coverage about, only minor mentions. I ignored WSWS and Mehring Books's coverage about the party, as both of the organizations are controlled by International Committee of Fourth International. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NPOL. Prior its deregistration, the party never won any seat as it consistently scored less than one per cent vote in all elections and finally without members. Patre23 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NPOL is not an exclusionary criteria, failure to satisy NPOL does not indicate a lack of notability. The SEP's forerunner was the Socialist Labour League, the Australian affiliate of Gerry Healy's SLL/WRP. The SLL played a not inconsiderable role during the rise of the far left in Australia politics in the 1960s and especially the 1970s. It is discussed across numerous texts examining far left politics in Australia of that period (and to some extent Britain as well); WP:NEXIST. Will post sources shortly. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Goldsztajn that would likely however justify an article on the SLL, but not on the SEP. If it's a "successor" to that as you say, then we'd typically consider it a different organisation (not least because Gerry Healy's organisations were a different one). Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless there's a reason due to size or significant ideological break, ongoign parties are redirected from their original names. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Splitting from Healy’s organisation would be a significant ideological break in this case. There seems to have been a big bust up in the original Fourth International (colour me shocked) and the ICFI split away from Healy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Leaving aside who split from whom, the SEP identifies with Healy and the SLL, no one else in Australia claims to be the successor party to the SLL. The ICFI is just one of the many Trotskyist internationals, but it is the one founded by Healy and the one the contemporary SEP parties worldwide claim as their international. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The various elements around the splits seem vague at present. I'm still however minded that the SLL (unless we've got evidence of electoral activity) should be treated as a separate organisation, and therefore doesn't carry notability over to SEP. This would be similar to consensus elsewhere, such as for Socialist Appeal (1992) and CWI which both treat successor groups as not inheriting notability. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Committee for a Fourth International or Delete. No demonstration of notability, sources online look to be largely from the group itself (WP:ABOUTSELF). Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sourcing on the SLL/SEP (Australia): two pages on origins and scope of the SLL,[1] news report on Australian state government investigation into the SLL,[2] party's newspaper from the 1990s held in the IISH's archive,[3] multiple discussions of ASIO surveillance of the SLL and its contacts with Libya and Iraqi diplomats in Australia,[4] discussion of the party from former member,[5] discussion on the SLL and SEP from author with another party (SWP/DSP) of the Australian far left,[6]

References

  1. ^ Alexander, Robert Jackson (1991). International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement. Duke University Press. pp. 78–79. ISBN 978-0-8223-0975-8.
  2. ^ "Investigation of SLL charge". Australian Jewish Times. 25 May 1978.
  3. ^ "Workers news: weekly organ of the Central Committee of the Socialist Labour League, Australian section of the International Committee of the Fourth International". zoeken.iisg.amsterdam.
  4. ^ Blaxland, John; Crawley, Rhys (26 October 2016). The Secret Cold War: The Official History of ASIO, 1975-1989. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 978-1-952535-48-2.
  5. ^ Mitchell, Alex (February 2012). Come the Revolution: A Memoir. NewSouth Publishing. pp. 438–440. ISBN 978-1-74224-107-4.
  6. ^ Percy, John (2005). A History of the Democratic Socialist Party and Resistance. Resistance Books. pp. 204–207. ISBN 978-1-876646-53-0.

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for input on Goldsztajn's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm personally not convinced on these sources being relevant, it's a bit hard to justify notability of a party that was formed in 2010 based on sources that are all discussing a forerunner from 50 years ago. What it suggests in fact is a complete lack of notability for the Socialist Equality Party, given an absence of RS about this incarnation. They might by able to justify a short/stub article on the Socialist Labour League if someone wanted to create it, but that's as far as I'd go. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems pretty clear that the Socialist Labour League is notable based on Goldsztajn's sources (here are a few additional newspaper sources: [16] [17] [18]), the question is just to what extent the Socialist Equality Party is a true successor. This source calls the SLL the "forerunner" of the SEP. This description of an item in a university library catalogue says The Socialist Labor League (SLL) is now known as the Socialist Equality Party, and still has a presence in Australia. This book refers to The Socialist Equality Party, formerly called the Socialist Labour League. Those obviously aren't particularly good or definitive sources, but in the absence of strong evidence otherwise and given that we don't have an article about the SLL, it's enough for me to think that it's reasonable to consider both names for the party to be within the scope of this article. A split or move could always be considered later. MCE89 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Trotskyite Socialist Equality Party, formerly called the Socialist Labour League..." (Political Handbook of the World, 1999 p.58), "In 1983, more than 60 agents were working inside target organisations, including the Socialist Labour League, the forerunner of the Socialist Equality Party." Mike Head, (2017) "ASIO's 'official history': More unanswered questions." Alternative Law Journal, 42(4), p.308 doi:10.1177/1037969X17732710. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Question, how can a book from 1999 refer to the name of a group only called the "Socialist Equality Party" in 2010? Rambling Rambler (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this catalogue entry referring to a document titled "From the Socialist Labour League to the Socialist Equality Party : perspectives resolution of the Socialist Labour League, adopted unanimously at its 17th National Congress, June 8-9 1996", I reckon the current article is wrong and they actually changed the party's name in 1996. This source says In June 1996, the SLL held its 17th National Congress to begin the process of transforming itself into the Socialist Equality Party. None of the current sources seem to support the claim that they changed the name in 2010. MCE89 (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WSWS is its own website though, which we should be avoiding as much as possible. This is in a nutshell why all these Trotskyist group pages on this site are so painful to untangle, because the only people that really seem to care about them are themselves and other groups, who will all run multiple websites and faux "publishers" in an effort to make themselves seem far grander and reputable than they are. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh agreed, I'm not suggesting that it's a source that contributes towards notability — I'm just saying that it indicates that the 2010 date in the article is probably wrong and that the party actually changed its name in 1996. MCE89 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is why I think for now we could have this moved to Socialist Labour League and sourced up for that, but as the Socialist Equality Party we don't have anything to say why it should be considered notable since becoming a political party. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without getting bogged down in the minutae of Leninist party orginisational theory, the difference between 1996 and 2010 in this particular party's own terms is irrelevant. What's clear is that the common name for the party from 1996 onwards was the SEP. The fact they even report their own electoral results prior to 2010 *as the SEP* reinforces the point (2004 federal election, 2007 federal election). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be the case @Goldsztajn, but even if you move the start date from 2010 to 1998, we still run into the problem that the sources still predate and are instead concerned with the SLL.
    We needs sources to establish the notability of the SEP on its own terms. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a content discussion, not a notability discussion. Notability of the SLL/SEP has been established. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is a notability discussion too. And while I agree the SLL has been established to be notable, the SEP still fails notability in line with prior discussions we've taken part in where a move to becoming a political party was treated as a major enough change that it required a new article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which "prior discussions we've taken part in"? Do you mean this discussion? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The two that come to mind in terms of discussions have been what to do with CWI[19] and Socialist Appeal[20] where successor groups didn't inherit notability. In practice this also seems to have been observed with how Socialist Party (England and Wales) is its own article despite a rebranding of what was Militant tendency (or at least those who hadn't split off).
    So not carrying over notability and thereby having an article for SLL and then justifying the SEP on their own merits would be the norm from my experience of this subject. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a joint page that is like SLL/SEP. The title could be figured out but the article just discusses all this Czarking0 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Patre23, the subject fails WP:NPOL. If that changes or there are better sources, ping me. Iljhgtn (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOL is a section of Notability (people) and applies to politicians/judges, not political parties. I assume you mean that the party fails GNG? And is there a reason that you found the sources presented by myself and Goldsztajn to be insufficient? MCE89 (talk) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek-e-Nizam-e-Mustafa

[edit]
Tehreek-e-Nizam-e-Mustafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 19:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Gramin Bank

[edit]
Gujarat Gramin Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable entity. Lack of independent in depth media coverage. WikiMentor01 (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per Sooterout. Also, it is only two months old. Coverage is poised to get bigger. Servite et contribuere (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerous, most of the Keeps here don't seem to rely on actual policy or guidelines. An assessment by one of our regulars would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National and regional outlets—including Business Standard, Livemint, The Times of India and DeshGujarat—provide independent, non-trivial coverage of the government-mandated merger that created the bank and other subsequent events, readily meeting WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Promotional tone and minor sourcing gaps can be remedied through normal editing rather than deletion. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westchester County Democratic Committee

[edit]
Westchester County Democratic Committee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and not well sourced. There is also a nomination for Erie County Democratic Committee and this article is even worse. Its also an orphan since 2021 and thats not likely to change. Metallurgist (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expansion. I believe it passes notability requirements as the organization has a physical headquarters and staffed office, leadership structure, members, and events. Eulersidentity (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does that make it notable? Any number of things have those, but arent notable. Metallurgist (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. My understanding of the guidelines was insufficient and have rescinded my vote now that I am thoroughly acquainted with them. Eulersidentity (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Categories

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Organizations&oldid=1303140902"