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

Jewish Big Sisters

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

Upon searching up the subject, I don't see any reliable sources that are usable for this article. WormEater13 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. WormEater13 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are not the 2 sources cited reliable? The NY Times goes without saying and the Jewish Communal register is an important book-length publication which I'm sure is cited numerous times on Wikipedia. kosboot (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4T – Vietnam Youth Education Support Center

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

Upon searching up the subject, I do not see any reliable sources that can be added to the current article. Also, the current article only references primary sources. WormEater13 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Vietnam. WormEater13 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Parks Foundation

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

Delete due to its reliance on a single source, which does not sufficiently establish the organization's notability as required by Wikipedia's guidelines. The article lacks independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the foundation's impact and activities OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student World Impact Film Festival

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

I have strong belief that this subject does not meet the notability criteria mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:NGO. This article relies excessively on the use of primary sources, and when searched up, I can only see some reliable/secondary sources, and even then they are not independent of the subject (e.g interviews with the founder). WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and New Jersey. WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autônomos FC

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

Contested PROD. Amateur team with no relevance in Brazilian football, having not played in any competition in which it has achieved sporting merit. Most of the sources present do not demonstrate WP:CONTINUED coverage, only mentioning the curiosity that the club has an anarchist theme. Blatant fails in WP:GNG and WP:MILL since there are countless amateur teams in Brazil with their own themes. Svartner (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Organizations, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per statement in this nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Society

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

Dubious notability (WP:NCORP/WP:GNG). The article has no footnotes, there is a list of possible sources in 'Further reading' but no indication they mention this organization. My BEFORE fails to find anything except a few passing mentions (like in this academic article, which is reliable but WP:SIGCOV is an issue - passing mentions in two sentences are not good enough, I fear); maybe there are sources in Japanese but ja wiki article is no better than ours. This is about to be deleted from pl wiki (where we recently cleaned a bunch of articles on non-notable Polish akido organizations that nobody except themselves have noticed). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Group of Institutions

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG. The only source currently in the article is the organizations website, while a cursory search didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and India. Let'srun (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Corruption in Human Rights Organization

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

Do we need an article like this? Even if it’s needed, the current article is likely written by an LLM and is not at all neutral, failing to meet NPOV. All these controversies have separate articles. GrabUp - Talk 06:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft – I appreciate your concerns, allow me to address them rather than delete the article.

For the AI usage, I used AI to improve my sentences cohesion / grammar etc. the text is originally mine, but I just made AI correct grammar / vocabs, etc. if that is not allowed, I am happy to rewrite the whole thing and bot passing it through AI. Doo2doo2 (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero says that there is a high chance that this is AI-generated, too. @Doo2doo2 Please write in your own word why this article should not get deleted.

And FYI, per WP:AIFAIL, AI-generated text usually fails WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 09:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - GPTZero shows 100% AI-generated text, and with the " ** " mark on "Allegations of corruption in human rights organizations** ", no doubt that the whole text is AI-generated, which usually fails WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. And this article doesn't make any sense either. The article is about allegations of corruption but the content inside it are mostly nothing like it, like with the Amnesty International faced criticism for toxic workplace culture or Human Rights Watch faced criticism for ideological bias. And furthermore with sentences like "as detailed in the Amnesty International controversy page" or "as noted in the Transparency International controversies article", you might as well be telling readers to read those pages.

🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 09:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is clearly WP:SYNTH, and it construes a trend that is not present in any cited source. Also, the definition of 'Corruption' here is treated very, very loosely. --Soman (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Soman clearly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR , Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article was removed from mainspace to draftspace and then userspace. Author may desire to make a case for draftification. I have restored the page to the mainspace for the AfD. Those interested may review the article history for more details. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the mess, I am still getting used to Wikipedia tools. I would like to request the article be drafticated to allow for fixing the issues it has, I still believe it has value as a way to summarize info in multiple articles and be of value to readers. Doo2doo2 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Philosophy and Literature

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

This article does not cite any sources. I have tried to personally search for any reliable, secondary, and independent sources about this subject, but have came to find none. Therefore, this makes me question the actual integrity and accuracy of this article, leading me to AfD this article. WormEater13 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, and United States of America. WormEater13 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its founder Hugh J. Silverman. There are plenty of mentions on Google Books and Google Scholar, but as far as I could tell all of them are either not SIGCOV of the organisation or were written by people who are themselves affiliated with the organisation (including this one). It has a fairly long history and has been affiliated with plenty of notable people so it's possible that I've missed something, but I couldn't find anything that would come close to a WP:GNG-qualifying source. MCE89 (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Service America

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

This article lacks notability - specifically, reliable, secondary sources that are not just interviews. WormEater13 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. WormEater13 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the nominator says, its the article that lacks citations, not the organization that lacks notability. I have added a half-dozen citations from reliable 3rd party sources and will continue to work on it until the nominator is satisfied. Freechild (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A large majority of the new sources that you've added to the article are interviews with individuals closely connected to the subject, and upon searching for notable sources about the subject, I can only seem to find primary sources. There's also many citations that you've added that don't have URLs. For example, one source you linked is the CEO of Youth Service America (Steve Culbertson) announcing that he will be speaking at his alma mater for a keynote, which is a clear connection to the subject, and is also not related to Youth Service America. WormEater13 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pazar3

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

Pazar3 is a Macedonian online marketplace founded in 2006. This marketplace lacks significant coverage by reliable independent sources. The page was created by this account Pazar3 Macedonia (talk · contribs). LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of adequate sourcing. Nothing out there to prove that this is a notable marketplace. Mekomo (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persiram Raja Ampat

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

Contested redirect - can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Indonesia#West Papua – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 11:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of Peace (Ukraine)

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ukraine. Mitte27 (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Youth and Sports (Syria)

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

This article was created the same day this ministry was announced. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. — Anonymous 02:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Sports, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This wasn't just a government that was announced. It was formed on the same day, and especially so because of the fact that the new government had a meeting after the press conference (the link for that info is here, from SANA itself (in Arabic)), because there already was news of it being formed (info for that here, also from SANA (in Arabic)) and also because of the fact that a few days later(on 3rd April 2025), the decree that dealt with forming it (dated 29th March 2025) was published. The information about the decree can be seen here in English as well as here in Arabic. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 06:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the article was created the same day the formation of the ministry was announced isn't very relevant in my opinion as a ministry doesn't need time to become notable, and the existence of the article is good so that new relevant info could be added as soon as they're available. The article currently contains basic info that are similar to what other ministries' article have. (The info were added after this discussion was started). RamiPat (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TOOSOON refers to topics that may or may not become notable; it's too early to tell. In this case, however, I have never heard about a government ministry that is not notable. At the very worst, the information could be merged to the cabinet that introduced the ministry, but I don't favor a merger here. Geschichte (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, it may be worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Affairs Office (Syria). Similar case with an outcome of draftifying. The main difference between these two nominations is that the former was nominated about a month after creation, by which point it was clear that its coverage was not sustained. WP:Notability is not inherited, so it's wrong to assume that a government ministry is notable by virtue of being of government ministry. Rather, those in other countries have actually done something notable other than merely be announced by a shaky transitional government. — Anonymous 14:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with the editors which argue, correctly, that WP:TOOSOON is incorrectly being argued here by the nom. The article is notable upon review and will continue to be so.Iljhgtn (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, how exactly can we prove lasting coverage if there has been no time for lasting coverage to arise? If the entire Syrian transitional government were taken out tomorrow in an ISIS decapitation strike, would there still be users arguing against the deletion of this article? It seems a little WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume that everything this fragile transitional government does will be successful. — Anonymous 11:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"If the entire Syrian transitional government were taken out tomorrow in an ISIS decapitation strike", that itself might warrant a new article as worthy of being notable if reliable sources supported it as so. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's your take on the matter. No one would disagree that the transitional period in Syria is fragile and uncertain, especially with Israel destroying whatever's left of Syria's military infrastructure. However, the factual basis of the two new ministries(the Ministry of Youth and Sports and the Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management) being established is based on the decree that was published last week and the announcement that was made the week before. That in and of itself is notable and warrants an article and therefore, meets WP:GNG guidelines (in my view, at least) and isn't speculation. To say otherwise doesn't make sense.

Also, isn't it a bit weird to invoke WP:CRYSTALBALL to judge the success (or lack thereof) of the new government as well as thinking that a possible or potential "ISIS decapitation strike" might happen? Isn't that pure speculation by itself? Forgive me for saying this, but that, by itself, sounds like WP:CRYSTALBALL to me.

And even if such an event were to take place, it doesn't take away from the notability of the two new ministries being established by itself.

And about lasting coverage and speculation, bear with me because I want to show an example:

If a group of celebrities went skiing in somewhere like Alaska or Norway for charity and it's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article being created, would it make sense to propose that the article gets deleted purely based on the notion that any or all of the celebrities might get injured during the event? No, because said event hasn't happened. That's WP:CRYSTALBALL in a nutshell, as far as I can tell.

If that same group of celebrities went skiing in either of those same places, but any (or all) of them do get injured in the process, should said Wikipedia article be deleted? No, because the event itself would then become notable for itself and the injuries that took place at said event. Assuming most (or all) of the the event hadn't already taken place, what could've been wouldn't apply anymore, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be documented. In other words, the two events become interlinked and can't (and really shouldn't) be separated from one another. (By the way, I don't know any Wikipedia guidelines that would refer to such a scenario because I'm new to Wikipedia.)

Therefore, I don't think lasting coverage, or any perception of it, is relevant here.

I agree with @Iljhgtn, by the way. If such an event were to happen, it would warrant its own article in its own right, but also, like I said before, the two events would become interlinked and therefore, can't be separated, so it still wouldn't make any sense to delete those articles.

Note: I used the words judge, thinking, possible and potential because you're giving me an impression that you're judging the articles' notability purely based on your opinion and speculation. As far as I know, creating or deleting Wikipedia articles isn't based off of whether anyone thinks the subject matter will survive, remain stable or remain the same based off of their own viewpoints, it's based off of past and current events and how covered said events are in the media.

In other words, deleting an article based off of uncertainty and speculation alone doesn't make sense when Wikipedia is supposed to document past and current events (and, in particular, ones that are notable).

In my view, there's already a lot that's wrong and/or poorly researched about Syria on Wikipedia, with regards to both past and present events. We don't need articles to be deleted based off of vague and speculative notions about the current government's stability and survivability. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@~Berilo Linea~, that's an egregious and frankly rather offensive misrepresentation of what I wrote. My point is that lasting coverage is necessary for notability, and the keep votes seem to be being made under the assumption that this ministry will definitely continue to receive such coverage. I gave a rather dramatic (but not wholly impossible) example of how this coverage would fail to be achieved. I'm not saying I think this will happen. Maybe they will decide to consolidate or abolish some of these ministries. Maybe they won't. We. Don't Know. We can't predict the future. — Anonymous 20:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you actually addressed my point here. My point is that you want the articles about the two ministries to be deleted based off of speculation. Your point is that things may suddenly change in the future... which is speculation, regardless of how you (or I, for that matter) would put it otherwise. That's why I said that it's weird that you invoked WP:CRYSTALBALL, which is a rule against speculation... based on speculation itself, especially because you've made a not-so-different point here:

"I gave a rather dramatic (but not wholly impossible) example of how this coverage would fail to be achieved. I'm not saying I think this will happen. Maybe they will decide to consolidate or abolish some of these ministries. Maybe they won't. We. Don't Know. We can't predict the future."

This is speculation. You are speculating. This is what's against WP:CRYSTALBALL. This is the point I'm trying to make here and in my honest opinion, speculation isn't and shouldn't become relevant when it comes to a decision like this.

Speaking of lasting coverage, in my opinion, I think those two ministries will receive lasting coverage since they have been formed, but that's my own opinion and my own speculation and therefore, isn't relevant. As a given, if you were right and I was wrong, there wouldn't be an entire page with the image showing the decree that forms the new government(as I've already linked in a comment I made earlier here). No such document would exist and it would be pure speculation on my end. There also would only be an announcement and there wouldn't be any decrees or other types of legislation relating to the formation of the new government that would've been published or, at least, those that wouldn't have been published already.

Speaking more about lasting coverage, I want to make it clear that there's nothing wrong with being concerned about lasting coverage and if my comment came off as saying that there's something wrong with that, then I apologise, but I think my point still stands about lasting coverage in that it's not as relevant as you think it is and even if it was, that still doesn't justify deleting the articles in question. Wikipedia is not meant to document everything, but it is meant to keep track of changes made to subjects like government institutions, even if those changes don't last long or are very sudden. It's not a perfect point, but I'd like to refer (again) to my example about the skiing event:

"If a group of celebrities went skiing in somewhere like Alaska or Norway for charity and it's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article being created, would it make sense to propose that the article gets deleted purely based on the notion that any or all of the celebrities might get injured during the event? No, because said event hasn't happened. That's WP:CRYSTALBALL in a nutshell, as far as I can tell.

If that same group of celebrities went skiing in either of those same places, but any (or all) of them do get injured in the process, should said Wikipedia article be deleted? No, because the event itself would then become notable for itself and the injuries that took place at said event. Assuming most (or all) of the the event hadn't already taken place, what could've been wouldn't apply anymore, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be documented. In other words, the two events become interlinked and can't (and really shouldn't) be separated from one another."

Finally, I apologise if my previous comment came off as offensive or a personal attack, it wasn't meant to be that way, it's just that what you're saying so far doesn't make sense to me and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, at least in my eyes. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Emergency and Disaster Management (Syria)

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

This article was created the same day this ministry was announced. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. — Anonymous 02:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the article was created the same day the formation of the ministry was announced isn't very relevant in my opinion as a ministry doesn't need time to become notable, and the existence of the article is good so that new relevant info could be added as soon as they're available. The article currently contains basic info that are similar to what other ministries' article have. (The info were added after this discussion was started). RamiPat (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. TOOSOON refers to topics that may or may not become notable; it's too early to tell. In this case, however, I have never heard about a government ministry that is not notable. At the very worst, the information could be merged to the cabinet that introduced the ministry, but I don't favor a merger here. Geschichte (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:TOOSOON doesn't really apply if sources are given to support notability, it's meant for things that don't actually have coverage because it is too soon. Passes WP:GNG regardless. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See my comment here for why I object to this proposed deletion. ~Berilo Linea~ (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Chinatown Land Trust

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

Article about a local-interest organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show passage of WP:GNG on a significant volume and depth of third-party coverage about the organization -- but this features no actual footnoting at all, and instead just contextlessly lists two "references": the organization's own self-published website about itself, which is not support for notability at all, and a single news article about it in the local media, which is fine but not enough to get this over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have a lot more media coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the instructor of the student who created this article as part of a Wikipedia assignment. I would like to revert the article to draft for the student for all the reasons you note. Millreed (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails any semblance of notability under WP:GNG. Experience is the best teacher, your student will recover. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 13:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Unity Party

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) nor the specific criteria for political organizations (WP:POLITICALPARTY). The Grand National Unity Party appears to be a minor political entity with minimal lasting impact and lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of the references are primary or fail WP:RS. Therefore, I believe this article should be deleted. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very minor non-notable South Korean political party. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there any reason why this second nomination exists even though Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand National Unity Party is still open (and is still the nomination the article's AfD notice points to)? If a legitimate comment had not been made here it would have been an easy procedural close. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch Oh yeah. It was just a mistake on my part to create a second deletion nomination page. It was my first time creating a deletion page. I apologize for my mistake. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep – Since there is a duplicated AfD. Svartner (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Veslački Klub Partizan

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

Article about a rowing club that fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any significant coverage about it. There is one news source from "Agencija Beta" briefly mentioning its victory in Serbian championship, but its not enough. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Serbia. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JSD Partizan#Partizan Rowing Club – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 10:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a whole website where information can be written so I don't see why this would not be done. I don't personally have time for it but someone can definitely translate this from Serbian to English. Боки 💬 📝 11:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Heroes

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

Fails WP:NSPORT with very limited WP:SIGCOV Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Rugby league, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has just been created. Within the next couple of days, more details and sources will be added. It’s foolish to list it for deletion without giving it time to be completed. OCDD (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be completed in draft space. Draftify Mn1548 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just Detention International

AfDs for this article:

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

Partial recreation of article previously deleted via AFD. Still fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). Not a recreation (I don't know what the article said in 2019), just an article about the same topic. I think the sources cited in the article show that it passes WP:GNG, if not additional coverage can readily be found in Google Books, Wikipedia Library, etc.Prezbo (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was half-wrong yesterday--having looked through Google Books and Wikipedia Library more thoroughly I think the two sources currently cited in the article (Jenness and Singer) are the best ones available. Both of those cover the organization in some detail though. They clear the bar of "significant coverage." Prezbo (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenix Project (San Francisco)

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, suggesting it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Xrimonciam Can you please outline what you did WP:BEFORE? And are you familiar with WP:DEL-CONTENT?

Also, how familiar are you with the political advocacy scene of the San Francisco Bay Area? I scrolled back through between 1,000 and 1,500 of your last edits and don't see any edits that are obviously about san francisco. While it's entirely possible I missed one or two because it was a quick skim, if that's the case, it would be only one or two edits related to san francisco - which is why I ask the question.

Thanks! Iknowyoureadog (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First three sources seem decent enough with significant coverage. I'd say that they were sufficient to establish notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First @Xrimonciam needs to ensure WP:BEFORE is followed, and they have presented no evidence that it was.

Second: there are three articles DEDICATED to the organization, two of which are in quite reputable sources that have national reach (SF Chronicle and SF Standard) and one of which covers the organization's white-paper release in a local publication (48hills). Iknowyoureadog (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is covered in multiple sources: San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Standard, POLITICO, and KQED (all WP:RS). 48hills adds useful local context. The article meets WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Constitution Party

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

Wikipedia is not a repository of every single political party. No established notability. No established independent coverage beyond describing the party as existing, such as election victories or notable results. No notable personalities or figures involved. No notable or established third party coverage. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer of every political party registered to fight elections. doktorb _words^deeds 01:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. doktorb _words^deeds 01:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable British political party. Doubt they have ever won a seat in the House of Parliament. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sourcing is very poor on this one. The sources already in the article are fairly short on information, with there seeming to be little information to be had outwith listings on ballot forms and one person. They're also the same sources that I turned up when I looked, so this seems to have the most sourcing that it can get at the moment, which is borderline. The non-independent sourcing is rubbish, and if unreliable Twitter posts are the only way that anything of significance is purportedly known (It's Twitter. It could be a total fabrication.) about this organization, which appears to be the case, then this is currently on the delete side of the borderline. Uncle G (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable party. Has no elected representation at any level and as far as I'm aware has never had any elected representation what-so-ever. There is also insufficient reliable third-party coverage of the party to give them notability or write up any sort of decent Wikipedia page on them. Very few third-party sources talk about it in any sort of depth. In most cases they only get a passing mention. Helper201 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No in-depth coverage by reliable sources provided or found. Yue🌙 07:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Airspace Control

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

Relies on a single source, information largely out of date. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Aviation, and Brazil. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither of the cited reasons for deletion are actually reasons for deletion. This department of the Government of Brazil easily meets WP:NORG, and a Google search will turn up independent third party references to that department. The catch is you need to search for the name in Portuguese. You can start by looking at the pt:Departamento_de_Controle_do_Espaço_Aéreo article which contains sources and additional content that can be translated to the English Wikipedia. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article on pt.wiki has more sources, just needs to be transcribed. Svartner (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Agreed based on the reasons above, not opposed to "drafifying" article as well while its being improved,meantime a person more familiar with Portugese language can double check the sources cited in the original article.Villkomoses (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Religious Liberty Association

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

Non-notable religious organisation. Few acceptable and unambiguously third-party sources found to consider against the notability criteria for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. JMWt (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find any independent, reliable-source WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate an WP:NORG pass. It is unclear to me whether this organization is or isn't part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in which case a redirect per WP:BRANCH would be appropriate. But this org's about page says both The IRLA is incorporated as a tax-exempt, educational, not-for-profit organization in the District of Columbia. Originally organized by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the IRLA's purpose is the universal and non-sectarian promotion of religious freedom for all people, everywhere. and IRLA.org is an official website of the Seventh-day Adventist World Church, so extent of the present affiliation is uncertain. Open to a redirect though if that makes more sense to others. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (delete) I'm not finding anything that is independent from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church website. My understanding of this organization is that it is run by/has an official relationship with the Church but conducts its business in a nonsectarian manner. While I share a bit of Dclemens1971's confusion over the exact relationship between the org and the church, I think that dropping a redirect to the SDA article and leaving a short blurb on that article could do the trick, if my understanding is correct. Am also open to full-out deletion, but redirecting makes more sense to me. ❤History Theorist❤ 04:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Yorkshire Young Labour

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

Nothing much found to suggest that a county-level youth branch of a national political party would be notable. The one reference on the page does not appear to be directly about the subject of the page JMWt (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot prove that these people, some of whom can actually be located on the WWW, were ever members of such an organization. But I can spot their names in the accounts that are in the edit history of the article. ☺ This seems to be people writing an unverifiable article about their own organization directly into Wikipedia, and giving up on that over 10 years ago. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither of the two sources are relevant nor establish notability, and can't find any additional sources. Looks like WP:PROMO. Orange sticker (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Uncle G.Flip ^and Flopped ツ 01:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Young Labour (UK). An editor from Mars (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community Leadership Education Fund

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

I cannot find enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Africa, Botswana, South Africa, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeProtect

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

Fails WP:NORG. Absolutiva (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Absolutiva (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources from The Guardian and The Independent seem enough to estabilishes WP:NCORP. Svartner (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures

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

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (commonly BIPM, per its name in French) is undoubtedly notable but this article does not show that the foundation of the Bureau was a separately notable event, and notability is not inherited. Merging into International Bureau of Weights and Measures would not be appropriate; much of this content has previouly been removed from that article, and/or Metre and History of the metre, as excessively detailed, failing WP:DUE, off-topic, digressive and florid. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Science. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to be a POV fork that combines things that could be included in International Bureau of Weights and Measures#History and then History of the metre. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would undo Special:Diff/1282631916 by the nominator and put it back in? We're here because the nominator blanked all of this from the main article's history section saying it was off-topic, it was spun out to a sub-article (presumably to be on-topic in its own article), and then the nominator nominated the sub-article for deletion. Don't be fooled by the passive voice in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This article also includes material deleted from History of the metre by Johnjbarton [1] and from Metre by Fgnievinski [2]. NebY (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that the centennial history of the BIPM published in 1975 was 220-some pages long, and yet our article had a mere 4 paragraphs of history. The coverage in the 1883-09-13 edition of Nature that was only on the founding of the organization, who agreed to it, who paid for it, where the buildings were built, and what was in the buildings, was longer than our entire main article. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fist, do NOT have duplicative content that is identical and redundant across pages. I think some of this issue comes from the ongoing edits and reversion between NebY and Charles Inigo across multiple pages so I'm not sure what each intends for them to look like, but Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures#Emerging geodetic standard and History of the metre#Emerging geodetic standard should not be on two pages lke this. The main BIPM article is not long enough to warrant a subarticle and its history should absolutely be longer – A lot of this information is very relevant and should be included there. However, I agree that some of this is about the history of the meter rather than specifcially the BIPM so that would belong on that page rather than this one. I disagree that it's excessively florid or detailed, it could use copyediting or trimming but should be kept somewhere rather than deleted altogether. Reywas92^Talk
Nor Merge nor Delete I tried to insert a lot of informations in History of the metre, but other contributors belived this article sould rather focuse on successive definitions of the metre. In order to avoid deletion of material, I copied part of it in International Association of Geodesy and in Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain.
Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain shows that the arc measurement which served to define the length of the metre was preceded by a geodetic survey aiming at joinning Paris and Greenwich observatories and was followed by remeasurment and extension of the arc meridian through Spain and Algeria at the time when Greenwich was adopted as the Prime meridian.
International Association of Geodesy explains the role of geodetic surveys and gravimetry in determining the figure of the Earth which was the aim of the French Acacdemy of Sciences in addition of determining the length of the metre.
When I created Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures the introductory section was larger and I copy-pasted it in the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures with links to various articles including Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain and Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
I then copy pasted material from History of the metre where it is considered by other contributors as an excessive amount of intricate details. I copied and pasted rather than cut and paste as I anticipated that Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures could be deleted.
In conclusion, I propose:
- to keep the extended version of the introductory section of Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the content of the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures,
- to keep the section Emerging geodetic standard in Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and
- to delete or summarize this section in History of the metre, which should focuse on the successive definitions of the metre accordingly to the wish of other contributors of this article.
Merge The content of the article Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures has been deleted, when I tried to merge it in History of the metre and it will not be accepted in the future. Merging in the article International Bureau of Weights and Measures's section History could eventually be an alternative. Charles Inigo (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures" notable?
- Our criterion is 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. Notice that explicitly excludes sources by the BIPM. Some of the sources in the current article are about the topic but the vast majority are not. Even Quinn's books, since he worked there for 25 years.
- Delete? I wish, but it does not look like we will have consensus to delete and there are reliable sources for the topic.
- Merge? No, the current content is not suitable any where in Wikipedia.
- What to do? I made a proposal Talk:Foundation_of_the_International_Bureau_of_Weights_and_Measures#Proposal. Basically delete any content that does not match (say) Quinn's TOC for his Artifacts book.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the name change for instance: Creation of the International Bureau for Weights and Measures. I propose a short description be added: From geodetic standard to international prototype metre. The scope of the article could be limited to the period from the Exposition Universelle (1855) up to the first General Conference on Weights and Measures (1855-1889). However, many sources date the beginning of the process back to the Great Exhibition in 1851.

Charles Inigo (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Unity Party

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

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations.

- **No direct sources**: There are no independent, verifiable sources directly covering the subject. - **Lack of references**: No reliable references exist to establish the significance of this political party. - **Fails WP:GNG**: The article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. - **Violates Wikipedia’s sourcing policies**: This article fails to provide reliable sources and lacks independent sources, violating Wikipedia’s verifiability policy.

For these reasons, I support the deletion of this article. --Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand National Unity Party (2nd nomination), which has attracted a delete !vote, despite this nomination still being open and linked from the article. I note this for the benefit of any potential closing admin and/or relister. (I have no opinion on the article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcquidditch It was just a mistake on my part to create a second deletion nomination page. It was my first time creating a deletion page. I apologize for my mistake. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a supplement to the reason for deletion, this Wikipedia article has referenced articles and bibliographies, but they are not about the Grand National Unity Party, which is the main topic of the Wikipedia article, but merely about people who appear in the Grand National Unity Party article in the course of discussing it. As such, they do not constitute evidence for the Grand National Unity Party, and there is no mention of the Grand National Unity Party in the article. Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Council~Haliburton Highlands

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

Arts council that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A BEFORE search, I could not find any other sources that weren't liked to the organization or a brief, trivial mention, it has got some local news coverage, but I'm not sure if that can cement notability. Not to mention almost the entire article's tone is promotional. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Arts Council- Haliburton Highlands has received independent + detailed in local news at the very least [3][4]. The events they put on in the region have also received non-trivial coverage [5]. They received direct support from the Canadian government to start an ongoing symposium on performing arts in rural communities [6]. News about the organization has been presented in the Toronto Star as well [7] .This coverage spans at least a decade, so it's not a small burst. Between the primary source of its website and local coverage that is sometimes included in major Canadian newspapers, it seems like the council is notable + provides a significant amount of arts programming in the Haliburton region. I vote to keep though I agree the article should be updated.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply sources 1,2,3 and 5 come up with 404 pages, are they availble on the Wayback Machine? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I malformatted the links. The links are fixed and the pages are still live. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is more of a promotion for the orgnaization than anything else. Was created by a single pupose editor in 2009 with not much editing from any other editor since. Probably COI issue. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The original author itself was banned in 2009 for being an advertising account, something seems fishy here. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of the article text concerns the history of arts initiatives in the area prior to the formation of this Arts Council: such content probably belongs in Haliburton_County#Arts_and_culture (suitably referenced, though). That leads to a wider suggestion that a merge and redirect may be a possibility? AllyD (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy with this outcome. There is probably enough coverage available to make a standalone page about the arts in the Haliburton area if the section in Haliburton County becomes too lengthy. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Fly List Kids

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

Does not pass WP:NORG. Mentioned in passing in some articles but no sigcov outside of non-independent and opinion sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, doesn't pass WP:NORG. Media is mostly passing mentions or primary sources. XwycP3 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : not notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to dispute the claims by the nominator. There definitely exists SIGCOV, but I think it's less clear whether this should kept. I see coverage starting around 2016-2017, such as these video segments: [8][9]. CBC in 2019 reported that NFLK "represents dozens of families across Canada who have been affected by the list and pushing for change", even after the House passed Bill C-59; also in 2019 there were articles from The Globe and Mail [10] and Huffington Post [11], and a CityNews video segment [12]. In 2020 CTV News reported that members of the group were "invited to test federal remedy" to the issue; that was also covered by Global News [13]. This was a cursory search but I think there's a case to be made because of the continued advocacy by the group prior to the federal government's action in 2020. Bridget (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before I can close, I need to ask User:Bridget, are you arguing for a Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yes, thank you for checking. I'll change to a keep. I'm concerned that all the other comments are simply asserting that it's "not notable" or "doesn't pass WP:NORG" without much elaboration. Bridget (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads somewhat like promotional content and isn't written well. It also doesn't pass WP:NORG. ^Wiinter_U 04:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. That page title sounds like something a really bored vandal would create. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bridget. Appears to have SIGCOV and deletion is not cleanup. मल्ल (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are a mixture of primary sourcing that isn't support for notability at all and coverage about the general issue of kids wrongly name-matching the No Fly List — what isn't being shown is any significant coverage which has this organization as its subject. To be fair, this is different enough from the version that was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Fly List Kids Legislation (Canada) that I can't recommend immediate speedy as a recreation of previously deleted content, but this version isn't making a stronger case that this organization would pass WP:NORG at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IndustryMasters

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

IndustryMasters the company(?) and IndustryMasters the game (formerly IndustryPlayer) fail WP:ORG. I could not find in-depth coverage in reliable sources online.

There are five sources cited but actually eight in total; three are pasted in the middle of the article as external links. Citation 1 is a permanently dead link. Citations 2 to 4 verify that the IndustryMasters website was used to host one event (one game) of a competition in India from 2006 to 2010. Citation 5 does not mention, but is being used to verify the existence of, the event and competition. The first external link is a YouTube video announcing that IndustryMasters won a Learning Technologies Award, a private initiative. The second external link is a WBS source that briefly mentions IndustryMasters twice in the context of the WBS working with them. The Warwick Business School source is an announcement of its partnership with IndustryMasters.

The sourced content does not indicate anything particularly remarkable about the IndustryMasters company(?) and the rest of the article, including information about its gameplay and utility, is wholly unsourced. Its biggest claim to fame is winning an award in 2020 in its niche subset of educational games.

This article was recreated by Sunshinebr after its preceding article IndustryPlayer was deleted on 6 June 2008. Sunshinebr justified the recreation by saying they added sources, but evidently the sources are not in-depth or independent of the company and nobody had bothered scrutinising them until now. All of this article's content was written by Sunshinebr (other users' edits being general cleanup) and nearly all of Sunshinebr's edits are limited to this article.

Seems to me that an article for a non-notable game and later company was recreated and managed to pass unnoticed for several years. Yet through all that time, not one reliable, independent source covered either the game or company in detail, hence a failure of WP:ORG. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Organizations. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the contributor sunshinebr. some inaccuracies in Yue's commentary _ IndustryMasters is a registered trademark for a proprietary and unique business simulation platform with hundreds of simulation variants, used by major corporations and business schools across the world. To call it non-notable is a distortion. - The activity in India was not 1 game but many editions and variations, and several top business schools. - The Learning Technology awards are a prestigious annual industry event in the UK. Not exactly a "private initiative" as Yue has stated. It may not be US-based, but is important in our industry, recognizing exceptional standards and performance as well as extremely close collaboration with a major academic institution. - I have removed reference 1 (the dead link) from the CPA of Australia as it seems to be out of print now. at the time of original publishing it was a valid reference. - The IndustryMasters platform continues to develop and publish in 2025 and will shortly announce major technological advances in business simulation programming. I would hope that Wikipedia would advance into the 21st century with its thinking, and provide a useful reference to the world across academia and industry.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshinebr (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is established by citing independent reliable sources providing enough detail on the topic, not just stating about its subjective importance or awards; this is especially true for articles about companies. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing notability here against WP:NCORP. The sourcing present in the article fails to support significant coverage that would detail key information to describe the business and its products. The article is littered with promotional jargon that is generally not encyclopedic at all. The sources indicate some recognition in the field, but these are scattered amongst products or business practices that fail to provide context to the business or really evidence anything about its core notability. If the business is notable within or outside its industry, broader sourcing about the business would be expected. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Delete I cannot see it's notability either. Business descriptions, paid and self-published sources only. Maybe some sources exist. --Unicorbia (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option. A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if notability surfaces, this article appears WP:TNT worthy, especially given the non-improvement since 2008. The Learning Technologies Awards might be a relevant trade award here, but that doesn't save the article. IgelRM (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Excalibur Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. I found no in-depth coverage in reliable sources after searching through Google and provincial archives (Vancouver City archives + UBC Library). The now defunct party achieved insignificant results in the one election it contested (less than one-tenth of a percent in 2013), so there is no obvious claim of notability.

Of the 6 sources cited, 2 are primary sources, 2 are blogs, 1 is routine local coverage for the election cycle, and 1 is a routine registration list from Elections BC. I found one more article from a minor news publisher that accepts articles from the general public. A lack of reliable and in-depth coverage indicates a lack of lasting significance as well. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 05:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties that never had seats in the legislature – Where the party is mentioned (and per others AfDs). Svartner (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Dhaka Premier Division Women's Cricket League. Bit of a WP:BARTENDER close, no prejudice against taking this to RfD if anyone feels strongly about a different target. asilvering (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammedan Sporting Club Women's cricket team

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

Non-notable team, playing in a league which doesn't hold official LA/T20 status. I don't know in which local competition the team takes place, not even backed up by sources. Fails WP:NCRIC, WP:NTEAMS and WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Sports, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Robo^Cric Let's chat 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mohammedan SC (Dhaka), the parent club.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911 The article you linked is a football club, which has no connection with the women's cricket team. I would support a redirect to Dhaka Premier Division Womens Cricket League, as it had been a consensus for a long time to redirect articles on insignificant clubs and teams. Thanks. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you skim the article you will see the club has seperate wings for cricket and hockey. There is no chance another club in Dhaka would have the same name but is unrelated.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dhaka Premier Division Womens Cricket League per RoboCric. Vestrian24Bio 14:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have proposals for Redirect and Merge but have two different target articles suggested. Can we agree on one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about a third target? Mohammedan Sporting Club cricket team could easily accomodate both genders. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhaka Premier Division Womens Cricket League per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That suggested target page is a Redirect so I think you meant Dhaka Premier Division Women's Cricket League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to link page from Liz. Not good as stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Austria Billie Jean King Cup team

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

Article appears to undergo regular edits with no WP:RS, Suggest merging content with Billie Jean King Cup which already contains details about the competitors. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Tennis, and Austria. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no deletion rationale presented above. Was a WP:BEFORE search performed? Also, the suggested merge target is completely inappropriate. Billie Jean King Cup is the article that contains all the high level information about the competition from its founding as the Federation Cup to the present day, and currently has 0 mention of this particular team (and also has 0 depth of any other team at the level this article goes in to). AfD isn't supposed to be used to propose bad merges or as a time pressured source finding/article improvement tool. Iffy★Chat -- 16:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable Billie Jean King Cup team so why on earth would we delete it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no sources indicating the Austria team for the Fed cup/Billie Jean King cup is or has been notable. There is routine coverage of their results from certain years, but I have not found anything else. Merely claiming it is a notable BJK team does not make it so, there needs to be sources to meet general notability.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you asked for sources, here's some: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Is that enough for you? Iffy★Chat -- 10:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources seem to be more than coverage of the team's results or their hopes for the Fed Cup/BJK cup. In my opinion, these would fall under routine coverage as it's pretty common for teams/players to be interviewed before, during, and after tournaments. I don't think these sources establish notability per WP:NSPORT or WP:ROUTINE. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what you're going to get for sports teams. If there's consistent year round coverage of their performance/team composition, that should go towards notability. I'd struggle to find many sources even for Austria national football team that wouldn't meet some definition of routine. Jevansen (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has been here since 2007. Should have some sources by now showing wider coverage. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] - The fact that the sources aren't currently in the article isn't a basis for deletion. It's an reason to improve the article. Iffy★Chat -- 21:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Legal Services Authority

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

Non-notable GraziePrego (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this nomination does not show signs of WP:BEFORE. PULSA as a government body, working across the state. " In Punjab such kinds of lok adalats are conducted under the Punjab Legal Services Authority. It takes up the various kinds of cases and is settled under this lok adalat." ([29]) See for example [30], [31], [32]. --Soman (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They exist, but coverage I find is only where they've provided legal services and are only mentioned. The one source now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pantheist Society

AfDs for this article:

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

I thought that this could be cleaned up, and I thought that I had found an actual source on the subject, an encyclopaedia article on this very thing — only for my hopes to be dashed when I checked the article author Harold Wood Jr in the author listing of ISBN 9781441122780 and found that xe is the founder of this organization.

The one real claim to sourcing in the prior AFD discussion was that Special:Permalink/153980923#External links means that the article "is referenced". It was not. It is not. The article itself pointed and points solely to the organization's own WWW site and what used to be the personal WWW site of one of its directors. On the organization's own WWW site is an outright copy of the same encyclopaedia article by Wood Jr. This is the only documentation of this organization to be found anywhere, and it all comes back to autobiography. There is no independent sourcing at all.

The nominator and several of the participants in the prior AFD discussion were quite right, but were outvoted by "assuming there's a real source", comments on the nominator, and bizarre comments that seem to be saying that we should keep the pantheism article.

Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of mentions of this, but it's hard to sort out them from any sigcov that may exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You also have to see whether it's written by Harold Wood Jr, which all of the ones that I turned up turned out to be. One turns up a 1999 Encyclopaedia of Associations entry, for example, and it turns out that it points to the organization's old AOL site by Harold W. Wood Jr. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found [33], which is by J. Gordon Melton, which is fine. There's also this [34] which has a few pages of something. If I keep looking I could probably find enough to cobble together an article but there may be a merge / redirect target that is superior. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you actually, though? That Melton article spends most of its time explaining pantheism and doesn't get to the subject of the society until the penultimate paragraph, most of which is in quotation marks, with an annotation at the foot of the page that www.pantheist.net is the source; the Society's more recent WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If citing primary sources for what a group believes for our secondary/tertiary sources made them unreliable then would we have any sources for any religion? We can't cite them directly but of course someone who is analyzing their beliefs is going to cite their primary source materials (an analysis of Christian beliefs as expressed in the Bible would not be of much worth if it came from someone who had not read the Bible). I would question it more if they did not. And as to the length yeah it could be longer but it's not worthless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If I fail to find more sources/a better target, I would support a merge to Pantheism, since Melton explicitly connects the group to wider ideas about Pantheism PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge to pantheism given admin comment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's ironic, given the nominator, but we need more participation here from editors who are willing to cast "votes" otherwise it's up the closer's interpretation which is often labeled a "supervote" which the community has criticized in the past.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Want to keep, but have to vote move to draft due to the state of the thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been around for 2 decades, so draftification isn't really on the table here. Any other takers for the merge to Pantheism?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t understand - why is drafting off the table? Hyperbolick (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All India Gaming Federation

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

fail NCORP; possibly hoax. every link I open leads to not related article. Insillaciv (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Insillaciv: The sources do not work, but there is some coverage about this body by those same media companies, so definitely not a hoax. Just do a google news search with the title. I didn't check them thoroughly so no vote yet. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate newspaper coverage for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trade org that sued an Indian state, unsure how notable. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – Not a hoax, but I could not find in-depth coverage in the sources given nor from a search online. Claims of notability are limited to self-given titles. Perhaps the (apparent non-governmental) organisation has better coverage in languages other than English, given that India is so linguistically diverse. Yue🌙 01:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sinai South Nassau

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

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage [35][36] (and that's just the first two results). WP:ATD demands at least a suggestion to merge to the parent health system, but the hospital itself is notable. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you did not read WP:NCORP before publishing the above statements. If you read WP:NCORP, you would discover that WP:NCORP explicitly mentions hospitals in the guideline. Aneirinn (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree NCORP is not the correct guideline here - the sources presented above are more about the building itself than a specific business, and the corporation/business would be Mount Sinai, not the specific hospital. Operating as its own entity for "tax" reasons isn't really why we have NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hospital itself is its own corporate entity. That is how it is structured in large companies that own hospitals in the United States that are variously known as "health systems" or hospital networks. Thus WP:NCORP is applicable. It is also without a doubt an organization, which WP:NCORP concerns. Aneirinn (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article even refers to what the hospital complex was before Mount Sinai took over. The article is clearly about the complex. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP even explicitly states "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc." Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we also have WP:NBUILDING, which simply requires WP:GNG. Considering this is clearly an article on the building and not on the business, since it covers the building throughout its organisational history including as a former independent hospital, we don't need to apply the higher standard. I can't access historical American newspapers at the moment, but I bet it should be easy to find coverage from 1928. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is severely lacking in significant coverage, one of the integral requirements for WP:GNG. It is a list of its name changes. Hospitals are not inherently notable for being located in New York, this one is certainly not. Aneirinn (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been there since 2016. Poorly sourced, does not look particularly notable and seems like a directory or random trivia on a building. Ramos1990 (talk)
Delete: This isn't the Mayo Clinic or the Hopitaux de Paris, it's just a run of the mill US hospital. The building might be notable, but doesn't appear to be. I can only find things about it being bought by the Mount Sinai group. I don't see notability and the sourcing used doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the more recent comments favoring a Delete !vote appear to be on the money. This article is from over 9 years ago and there does not appear to be any sigcov to further cement notability here. That isn't likely to change any time soon. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you look at local news from in and around Long Island there are several articles discussing the expansion that has occurred and will continue into the near future at this hospital. I added the section regarding the new ER and soon to be added pavilion. I'm sure there will be added services into this new space and more to add to this article. At the very least the deletion could be delayed to see where the hospital goes. Cactusyield (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ausar Auset Society

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paganism and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While I did find mentions of the Ausar Auset Society in quite a few scholarly sources, they were exclusively trivial ones that mentioned it as an example of Black / African spiritualism, new religious movements or cults. In-depth coverage is limited to publications by the Ausar Auset Society itself or adjacent organisations. Yue🌙 23:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the chapter devoted to this in a Routledge book and the Encyclopedia source are enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [37] [38] [39].

This group appears in basically every significant NRM encyclopedia - quite absurd for us not to have it! PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [40] [41] [42] [43]

This fulfills WP:GNG. WP:NORG explicitly says it does not apply to religions, but even if it did it would pass that too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above argument and sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, that's this. Definitely significant coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Right now the page has been around since 2005. But it looks so underdeveloped. Some previous revisions had more content about the movement but not much citation. As such it make more sense as a section than a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk)

Notability is based on the existence of sources, not the development of the article. As far as I know, stubs aren’t against the rules - a section on what? That argument would make sense if you are proposing a merge, but you are not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's clearly enough sourcing to make a detailed article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PARAKANYAA. The four entries for this group in various encyclopedias and the three books that discuss it in detail are clearly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories