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

Union Gospel Mission

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

It remains unclear about central leadership of "Union Gospel Mission" despite putting fair amount of effort into WP:BEFORE. "Union Gospel Mission" is an extremely common name used throughout North America, but the only commonality appears to be the name and no central connection.

There's no evidence indicating that the Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada edition of Union Gospel Mission meets the threshold of WP:NCORP with particular attention to WP:AUD. The significant coverage of UGM of Vancouver BC doesn't extend beyond the Vancouver BC metro area. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Christianity, and Canada. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JACKSNNZ

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

Unreferenced stub (well, just a general ref, no footnotes). Uncler how this meets WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. My BEFORE shows some mentions in passing here or there, but noting in-depth. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic in First Place!

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

Fails relevant guidelines including WP:ORG. Most of the article isn't even about the political party. The sources which do relate to the party, do not provide in-depth and independent coverage of it. C 679 15:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 15:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antiglobalization activists in Syria

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

Possibly not notable. GZWDer (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This has existed since 2006, but was never sourced. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Voices Community Center

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

Fails WP:NONPROFIT. Cannot see enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Roofing Contractors Association

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Reid Ribble. Ribble was only president for 2 years and his article contains no information on what this association is/did. Article created by a single purpose account.

A search in google news only comes up with roofing related sources which are not independent for meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Secondary Ticket Agents

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Financial Services Authority. I don't believe it should be redirected to an article which doesn't even refer to it. This article was created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced since 2008. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Futsal First Division

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

Challenged prod. A WP:BEFORE yields nothing significant about this second-tier futsal league in a tiny country Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Malta. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maltese Futsal League. Giant Snowman 09:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youth of the Centre-Democrats

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

Objected prod. 20 year old article with no coverage, failing WP:GNG. Could be redirected to Centre Democrats (Denmark) as a WP:ATD. Garsh (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Garsh (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) No sourcing either. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Centre Democrats (Denmark). Added some sources and found several more, but they tended to be brief mentions, either in conjunction with the Centre Democrats, or with other parties' youth organisations (e.g. when they undertook joint activity such as protesting against terrorism after 9/11). At first I was going to recommend a merge, but there isn't much substance to merge into the target article. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hume City Bulldogs

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

All I found in independent sources about this rugby league club was a mention about its disappearance in this article. JTtheOG (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Lack of sources Mn1548 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYS F.C.

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. PROD was contested with the message "please deal with Template:Liga FAM contents comprehensively", but as the template contains links to 49 clubs, to bundle these together would be a trainwreck. Therefore this is to be a discussion only on DYS F.C. C 679 06:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. C 679 06:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 06:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per total lack of notability. Svartner (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, guess the club didn't live that long. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What kind of trainwreck are you expecting? When I said deal with, nominating everything the template links to is not the only option. Perhaps the template should be deleted or modified. It doesn't make sense to have a bunch of redlinks or backlinks in a navigation template. I may well be wrong, but I don't think picking off members of this class one at a time with prods is the best approach. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Expertise

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

Declined prod. Unreferenced for 16 years. Lacking third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any significant coverage. Aŭstriano (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets Read Today

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

Article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, having only made edits about the subject. Also, the coverage as it stands seems to be only about one event (wherein, the nonprofit's founder builds a library at Newark airport). What i'm concerned about is - there's no WP:SIGCOV about the organization itself. SIGCOV requires that the subject is discussed directly and in depth. The sources about the subject seem to only be about the founder and her starting a library at Newark airport, but not about the organization itself - which is what the article is about. I think it is WP:TOOSOON for a article just this very moment. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, United States of America, and New York. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also thought this was likely a COI piece, but tried to put that aside. I agree there's no WP:SIGCOV about the organization itself. The articles referenced only briefly mention it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the AfC reviewer who accepted this article. When I reviewed the draft, I found that it met WP:THREE, with coverage from ABC7NY (Feb 2024), NorthJersey.com (Feb 2024), and NJ Urban News (Apr 2025), which represents a reasonable level of sourcing for a small nonprofit. The tone is neutral, the facts are verifiable, and I did not see any promotional language or signs of an undisclosed conflict of interest. Even if the creator has a connection to the subject, WP:COI by itself is not grounds for deletion. What matters is whether the article meets notability and content policies. Assuming that every well-written submission from a new editor is a COI would discourage good-faith contributions, which goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. HerBauhaus (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article has received coverage, but it does not necessarily determine that the subject warrants a Wikipedia article. A few sources, like the ABC 7 NY one [1], are mostly interview and simply lack any secondary coverage about the organization itself. But there's one important detail that's consistent throughout the sources/coverage about the subject - they fail to establish WP:SIGCOV about the organization itself, which is the subject of this article. There's no secondary, in-depth commentary about the organization, which is what a organization needs to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG. No prejudice against re-creation in the future when the organization receives WP:SIGCOV. It's just WP:TOOSOON at the moment. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Great human interest story, I enjoyed reading it. Not seeing the coverage here to meet WP:GNG, let alone the stricter standard of WP:NORG; none of the sources contain SIGCOV of the organization. Suriname0 (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Chamber Music Society

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

There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
There are currently 24 references in the article. There are pages on the web site of the society itself (www.unchambermusic.org) and other United Nations web sites: webtv.un.org and www.passblue.com, which at www.passblue.com/about-us, says "We report from our base in the UN press corps". There are pages on press release sites: www.prweb.com, www.prnewswire.co.uk. There are pages on the web sites of organisations which have hosted concerts for the society, and a page showing a video of the society. There are pages which are merely announcements of concerts by the society. Not one of the references comes near to being significant coverage in an independent reliable source.
The same applies to this article as ReaderofthePack said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations movie society, about another article created by the same editor: "It looks like this is one of dozens upon dozens of clubs run by the UN Staff Recreation Council." JBW (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom clearly fails WP:NORG just blatant promotion by an intern. Theroadislong (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Organizations, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ligue Régional II

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

Reason OGL259 (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC) Due to the regional leagues literally having the same websites for the I and II of their respective leagues, i think it is longer required for this page and can just be merged into the Regional I page, kinda like the Southern Football League page. Where the multiple league are on one page.[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 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Algerian football league system, doesn't need own article. Giant Snowman 18:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Algerian football league system – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Truck Accident Attorneys

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

Organization does not meet WP:ORG.

I proposed for deletion, was seconded by Bearian, article was deprodded by JRkeys123 who is the creator of this article as well as Joseph A. Fried (see AFD here), Law Enforcement Guide to Truck Driving Safety Standards (currently also proposed for deletion by me and seconded), Understanding Motor Carrier Claims (also proposed for deletion and seconded).

There is perhaps one article providing something close to substantial coverage of the organization itself. This one[2] and that is arguably merely WP:ROUTINE. My WP:Before didn't turn up anything else. Jahaza (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Organizations. Jahaza (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per spam. As lawyers know, when someone does something bad once, it's negligence; the second time, they should know better, so it becomes recklessness. The third time it's Intentional; the fourth time it's made with scienter. As I said in seconding the proposed deletions, we are neither Amazon nor LinkedIn. In 2025, everyone knows this. We are a charity, under attack from the wealthiest and most powerful people in the United States. We can't give away our resources without risking our nonprofit status. Bearian (talk)
Delete: Reading the article I don't see any thing that is really a claim of notability and looking through the sources on the article as it is right now I don't see anything that I would consider to be independent and in-depth. I haven't found any other sources in my looking that aren't already in the article. Moritoriko (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma & Bronchitis Association of India

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

Declined prod. The 3 provided sources are not indepth coverage. Nothing in google news. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and India. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing substantive Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No important content and fails WP:ORG Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 03:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: per nominator. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)~~— Durjan Singh Jadon (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala (talk · contribs). —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country Education Partnership

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

I've done a WP:BEFORE search, and it seems like the organization doesn't have any reliable, secondary coverage per WP:GNG. Most sources available seem like they are passing mentions (which lacks WP:SIGCOV). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Oceania, and Australia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched Proquest and the archives of The Age going back to the early 1980s under both its current and former names and couldn't find any SIGCOV. It's been quoted a couple of dozen times as a lobby group, but I couldn't find anything beyond quotes and passing mentions. This 1982 study contains SIGCOV, but it was funded by the Country Education Program and is therefore not independent. I didn't find any sources that could contribute towards GNG. MCE89 (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't find any significant coverage in reliable and independent references about the topic to justify notability. Fade258 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my findings reflects findings of the nominator, also the citations in the article currently are primary sources.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Tool Library

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

Upon search, this tool library does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article. I find one [3] available reference, but it is mostly a interview. There needs to be multiple reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, and it only seems that there is one, for which is borderline. Not to mention, the article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, as all of their edits in the mainspace seem to be about the Edmonton Tool Library. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Canada. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Factor (LGBTQ)

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

Article is a short stub with no sources, I was unable to find any references to reliable sources to establish notability (though I don't know Danish so its possible I would have missed them) and the link pointing to the organization seems defunct. No substantial edits to the text of the article have been made since its creation in 2011 and the page doesn't exist in Danish wikipedia which to me further highlights the lack of notability. The article also reads like corporate speak/self-promotion.Giuliotf (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also can't find any RS about this org. KnowDeath (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Giuliotf
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Giuliotf
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Giuliotf
Delete: have yet to find any significant coverage for the org. Having difficulty even finding the actual org itself .Lorraine Crane (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RåFILM film collective

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

Fails WP:ORG. The article seems to be created here as only for promotion with only one self-published source being repeated after RåFILM was deleted as WP:G11. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, and Sweden. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ya it looks like but it also contain some information this author might change the tone and make it informative Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 How did you know before-hand ? Agent 007 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Main subject seems to be Detained (2015) which does not have significant media coverage. Everything else seems extraneous. I fixed the structure of the page, but I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This discussion containing LLM-generated text from an AI chatbot or other tool has been collapsed. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The organization creates impactful films on social, environmental, and humanitarian issues. Their documentaries are widely cited and used by NGOs and academic institutions. Focusing on marginalized communities and public awareness, these films serve as powerful educational tools and continue to inspire positive change through storytelling. Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 Why are you using ChatGPT like tools to reply. Are you being paid by RåFILM or related to Eduwriter189? Agent 007 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no i am not related to any of these Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can u guys let me know which part make it promotional and how should i maintain the neutrality Eduwriter189 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have already adviced you many times on your talk-page. Agent 007 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is using only primary sourcing, not acceptable. I can only find one passing mention [4].. We has next to nothing for sources, so just nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time way too little mentions in media. Primary sourcing is not enough.BabbaQ (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant COI. Deb (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Stubify - I have found several sources in Swedish media that cover Råfilm and things they have done. Even excluding coverage entirely about their films (I'm not sure if they count, it is about their productions) there are two in Sydsvenskan: [5] [6] and one in Proletären: [7].
I agree that the current article needs severe cleanup, and we should start from a clean slate by stubifying it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of their films: [8] [9] [10] AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been proposed for deletion because it is written promotionally, not because it's not notable. Deb (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Winford Centre for Children and Women

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

Article creator has a possible undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and the subject itself does not seem to have any inherent notability per WP:GNG or WP:NGO. The article also has clear signs of being AI-generated. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Nigeria. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FightMND

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

The organisation does not seem to meet the notability criteria set out in WP:NORG. There is no significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Most of the references are either primary or directly affiliated with the organisation, such as its own website or press releases or event announcements. I also did a quick search online and apart from fundraising campaigns, there is nothing in-depth from reliable secondary sources. Without solid coverage in independent media, it is hard to justify keeping this as a standalone article. Happy to discuss further if anyone has better sources.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I could maybe see the case for a merge to Neale Daniher, but I don't see any reason for deletion. Daniher was literally named this year's Australian of the Year for founding this charity. Its fundraising and research activities also get a fair bit of RS coverage, although a lot of it does centre quite heavily on Daniher himself. From the first couple of pages of my search: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. I probably lean keep, but no real objection to a merge to its founder. Definitely oppose deletion. MCE89 (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is a worthwhile article for one of Australia's most recognisable charities. I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted. I oppose deletion. 2001:8003:912F:4600:3125:2875:60E6:13F1 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was able to find these articles that establish notability outside the scope of Neale Daniher [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] There is enough info for both articles to exist, and too much that will be lost about FightMND if there was a merge. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the refs found above and in the article. This week is the lead up to their Big Freeze fundraising event. It's a shame that someone choose to place the big ugly warning template on the article for this important week. Hope you are making a donation. The-Pope (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since the nomination, the article’s secondary sourcing has been considerably strengthened. In addition to coverage from ABC News and the Australian of the Year Awards site, I’ve added pieces from 7NEWS and The Canberra Times. As others have noted, WP:NEXIST is also relevant. With broad independent coverage and a strong national profile, this clearly passes WP:NORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E Health Point

AfDs for this article:

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

I looked at the sources identified in last AfD and they are now all dead. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and India. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:ORGCRIT. AndySailz (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, also article is too promotional and lacks notable news references.Almandavi (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep :In the previous AFD, User:Churn and change provided two sources: The World Health Organization , which is peer-reviewed and offers a factual, neutral, and analytical description of eHealthPoint’s services (telemedicine, clean water, diagnostics, medicines)[29]. The MIT Technology Review Review provides detailed, neutral, and factual information about eHealthPoint’s telemedicine model, service structure, and progress, further establishing its credibility[30]. Additionally, I found other sources: IJCMR is a peer-reviewed journal, but its information is primarily based on eHealthPoint’s perspective, lacking third-party verification or critical analysis, making the article somewhat promotional[31]. The Daily Excelsior article is similar to The Economic Times article, as both provide identical information about the eHealthPoint and Max Healthcare partnership (e.g., covering 400 villages in Bathinda, ₹30 per consultation, and expansion plans)[32][33]. The Newswire source mentions the Genpact-NASSCOM award but is otherwise entirely promotional[34]. The HBS case study on eHealthPoint analyzes its business model, challenges, and social impact, offering valuable insights, though its proprietary nature limits publicly available information[35]. Given the two reliable sources (World Health Organization and MIT Technology Review), the page should be retained on Wikipedia. SachinSwami (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO article and the MIT review one are small 1 line mentions of E Health point and not SIGCOV and don't count for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*::The review of MIT seems to be entirely based on e-Health Point, but is there any mention of another company to negate this? The World Health Organization source only mentions the name of E Health Point, but it’s not clear if it’s fully based on it. Even if we accept that, there are still two reviews. The second is a case study from HBS, which is also a review [36]. Now, tell me whether to support this or not, and I’ll shape my opinion based on what you say. SachinSwami (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SachinSwami analysis. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CresiabBilli, have you personally checked all the sources? Can you specify which of the sources I provided are reliable and explain how they are appropriate? Please stop immediately supporting "Keep" just because someone else backs it—use your own judgment as well. SachinSwami (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I am withdrawing my previous comment. All the sources are from 12 years ago, and no recent reviews can be found on Google. Therefore, there are no current sources about the company, so supporting "Keep" does not seem appropriate. SachinSwami (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global Student Forum

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

fails WP:NORG and entirely primary sourced promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. GoldRomean (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve: This appears to be a relatively new organization with a wide area of influence. A relatively quick search revealed this story I'm reviewing for additions to the article. I feel like deletion is too hasty at this stage. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Archaeology. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references all seem to be press releases/announcements put out by the organization, often being passed along by partner organizations. Or they don't mention this organization at all. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. --Here2rewrite (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article has already been at AFD so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colcom Foundation

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:CORP and seems to be a significant behind-the-scenes player in U.S. politics. The article could be expanded using sources such as [37][38][39][40]. Nosferattus (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I observe considerable significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of an organization as mentioned in WP:NORG. CresiaBilli (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Family Foundation

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I would not be strongly opposed to merging the content into Orlando Bravo, it's important to note that much of the more significant coverage that the organization has received can be found in Spanish-language and Puerto Rico-focused news sites, which may have been overlooked. See the dozens of articles in El Nuevo Día here: https://www.elnuevodia.com/buscador/bravo%20family%20foundation/*/*/*/*/*/ - many of these are passing mentions, but several would certainly be considered WP:SIGCOV. There is a similar wealth of coverage in News Is My Business (see here) and Primera Hora (such as this one). It's natural for articles covering the organization to focus on the founder, since the organization bears his name and the two are inextricably linked. But that shouldn't take away from the organization's distinct notability when the coverage is there. (Note: I have a conflict of interest with the organization, as I work for Thoma Bravo.) JBarTB (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. 30Four (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Science, Social science, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Guggenheim Fellowship, which is essentially their only function. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and New York. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic seems notable to me. Promotional content can be reduced. Passes GNG. AndySailz (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had some press in 2014 which seems to be around its launch, but nothing since that time that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Huffington Post is a contributor piece and the rest is mentions our routine coverage which does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Republic of China

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

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

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

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

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

Keep – A content dispute (regarding the examples of Rhee and von Falkenhausen) is not grounds for deletion. Having an "assortment of support-for-the ROC-related info all lumped together" is also not grounds for deletion; list articles are a thing, as are similarly-named and scoped articles like Pro-Americanism and Russophilia. "Other thing exists" arguments aren't policy-based, but I don't see a proposal here based on deletion policy and cannot figure out what the deletion rationale could be. The nominator's disagreements seem to be limited to a content dispute concerning possible WP:OR, rather than a denial of this topic's notability or existence. Yue🌙 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominator had argued for deletion based on WP:SYNTH, with supporting evidence/analysis, I may be sympathetic. But instead they questioned whether Falkenhausen, who served in the military of the ROC, can be called "pro-ROC", which makes this very hard to take seriously. As such, I essentially agree with the two others above that this should be closed as a procedural keep; it could even be argued that this falls under speedy keep criteria 1 or 3. Toadspike [Talk] 13:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article seems to be a pervasive work of WP:SYNTH that is syncretizing the views of several distinct people based on a tenuous connection to a position on Taiwan. Significant concern regarding accuracy of any citations in this. An article on this topic (albeit one with perhaps a less clumsy name) could definitely exist but I think this one needs WP:TNT. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. A TNT may be appropriate here. There is a lot of unsourced and poorly-sourced content. But the article tries to discuss a notable topic (the distinction between "pro-Taiwan" and "pro-ROC") and I'm not sure if deletion is better than trying to clean it up. Toadspike [Talk] 08:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up would have to start with manually reviewing every citation to see if it actually supports what is claimed for it. It's not a small task. Simonm223 (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "A random assortment of info all lumped together" is a perfectly good nomination statement for a WP:TNT delete. So - does it need TNT?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am solidly neutral on a TNT. The content isn't ideal, but it's not that bad. OTOH I currently don't have the bandwidth to give it the serious makeover it needs. Toadspike [Talk] 19:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Consulting Group

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

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

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

I agree more sources are needed. I'd prefer it be kept, but I can merge it into United States Department of the Interior. 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC). ]
Merge with United States Department of the Interior: I thought there would be more sources here, but all I could find were some DOGE tweets and passing mentions in secondary sources. Selectively merge any reliably sourced information to the department this group operated under. Let'srun (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is appropriate here. Bearian (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roots of Reform Judaism

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnen Foundation

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joseph Sunnen as per the nomination. Fails WP:SIGCOV. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Dapat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Executive Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to Wikimedia Foundation#Staff. Coverage of the various CEOs does not necessitate that the position of Wikimedia CEO have its own spinoff article from the main Wikimedia article - that is governed by WP:NOPAGE and WP:CFORK. Even if this subject was notable, that does not mean it needs its own article - in this case, the current article is short enough that it could be merged into the staff section. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 04:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one more relist before closing this, likely as "No consensus"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has substantial issues, but the topic itself doesn't seem to lack notability. Multiple independent sources have covered the CEO of the Wikimedia foundation. MrTaxes (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no reason for us to begin breaking out CEOs into their own articles; nor is it clear to me why the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation should be an exemption to the usual policy. Certainly, the article isn’t exactly brimming with content. ···sardonism · t · c 20:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Freedom

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vellimalai Sri Vivekananda Ashramam

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless Link

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

I'm unable to find sufficient secondary sourcing for WP:NORG. Of the sourcing in the article, it's almost entirely primary. The only secondary sources are [41] and [42], neither of which provide sigcov on the org. Though it seems like their research is decently well-cited [43], I can't find any secondary sigcov sources. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, thanks for reviewing the page.

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. Currently listed sources are insufficient (see source table); cannot find any other RS from a Google search for "homeless link" -homeless.org.uk -linkedin.com -eventbrite.com -vimeo.com -spotify.com -youtube.com -apple.com.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"HOMELESS LINK - Charity 1089173"		WP:CORPTRIV: statistics	✘ No
"About Us"	About Us page for Homeless Link (HL)		✘ No
"Rick Henderson	Contributor page; probably self-authored		✘ No
"Which charities are fighting..."		One-paragraph entry in a list of 16	✘ No
"A fresh take..."	Promoted content		✘ No
"Why we are working with the royals"	HL website		✘ No
Cantrell		WP:CORPTRIV: leadership change announcement	✘ No
"Homess Link to take..."	HL website		✘ No
"Rought Sleeping Snapshot..."	HL website		✘ No
"Homeless England"	HL website		✘ No
Homewards Fund		Empty page?	✘ No
"Reset Homelessness: ..."	Affiliated; organization is engaged in a joint project w/ HL		✘ No
"Support for people sleeping..."		Coverage of a service HL provides, not HL itself	✘ No
"2021 Annual Review..."	HL website		✘ No
Smith	Author works for HL		✘ No
"Implementing Housing First..."	Report by HL		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Anerdw (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anerdw's source analysis above sums it up; even from a quick glance it is clear that the subject is not notable as no sources meet the criteria so as to make this subject notable as per WP:NCORP. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 18:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Hardware and Design Alliance

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

I couldn't find secondary sources with sufficient coverage to establish notability. The best I could find was that [44] mentions them in passing and says they folded "some time after 2010", similarly [45] mentions them to say they've been "discontinued". [46] mentions they 'resurfaced with the “Open Source Hardware Certification” programme of the Open Source Hardware Association in 2018' but doesn't source that or give further info.

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

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

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

Selective merge to Open hardware. The organization does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT for a standalone article, but a mention at Open hardware seems to be warranted given it has been (briefly) discussed in reliable sources such as [47] (published by Oxford University Press) or [48] (published by Taylor & Francis). MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Open hardware per MarioGom. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holafly

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

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

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

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

Keep passes WP:PRODUCT. An in-depth review in TechRadar - [49] - in-depth coverage in Levante-EMV - [50] - and La Vanguardia - [51] - is enough to pass WP:GNG threshold as well. 82.117.28.137 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except the article is about the company so WP:PRODUCT doesn't apply. That said - if the article was changed to focus on the eSim service, those reviews would count towards establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find product reviews for the eSIMs. Sure it technically qualifies under WP:PRODUCT, but I could not find a single source that describes anything about the company or history of the product, so there isn't really any way to make an sourced article that is not an WP:PROMO. Jumpytoo Talk 08:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's definitely reviews about the eSIM to meet PRODUCT. Sure, maybe the article should be refactored to focus on that aspect, but the distinction seems, to me, somewhat pedantic and I don't think deletion is preferable to redirection here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Windsor Residents Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete seats in a local council do not mean that it is notable. Can't find sigcov. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Guild of Music & Speech

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

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

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

Hi GTrang,

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

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

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

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

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

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

RebeccaGreen, did you end up finding any sources? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final attempt to reach quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravelets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HighKing's source analysis. The sources used in the article are primarily primary sources or articles that do not discuss the subject significantly. And so there is only one source to use but it is not enough. And there are no sources online that could be added to the article although more sources which are found are always welcome. ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories