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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs.

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[edit]

JOM Charity Award[edit]

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

Delete, non notable Award. Sources number 2 and 3 are same PR puffery published within a month of each other and the contents bear striking similarity and that cannot be taken as a coincidence. Source number 4 from The Sun (Nigeria) is a press release from the JOM Award itself but masked as a news story. Source number 5 from Vanguard (Nigeria) is very similar to sources number 2 and 3 in headlines and in the body and tone of the writing. The headline of the source number 5 says the JOM Award is one of the top 5 charity organisations in the UK but no single UK media outlet is cited in the article – a PR puffery at its best. All other sources cited are similar and unreliable due to their PR puffery LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Organizations, and Nigeria. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liaison Committee for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Created in 2003, this article has been a perma-stub for over two decades and provides little-to-no real information about the organization; it only appears to have one section that is at all notable. The only citation in this article is an obituary written by the organization itself. Looking through Google Scholar, there are absolutely zero sources on this in either Spanish or English. It not only doesn't have significant coverage, it doesn't seem to have any real coverage at all! Grnrchst (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Social science. Grnrchst (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Workers' Unity – Fourth International[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as lacking reliable sources since 2007. On a search for some, I only managed to find two books that even mention this organization: Contemporary Trotskyism and The Twilight of World Trotskyism, both by John Kelly. Neither book provides any substantial detail; most of the mentions are within long lists of Trotskyist internationals, with the only real information being that some of the organization's affiliate sections broke away from it following its formation. As far as I can tell, most of the articles that link to this article are also lists of Trotskyist internationals. It only has one notable section, its Argentine one. I don't think every obscure Trotskyist international needs a dedicated article, and given the complete dearth of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, I think this could safely be deleted or redirected to Socialist Left (Argentina). Grnrchst (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Social science. Grnrchst (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As original author I have no objections to deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FK Bosna 92 Örebro[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. (They are now on the 6th.) Geschichte (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristbergs IF[edit]

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 5th tier. (They are now on the 8th.) Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Scottsbluff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The prior AfD closed in January, but I don't believe these changes, while not a G4, are sufficient to render a different outcome and the mall still fails WP:CORP. While TPH may be limited from filing a DRV, they raised their opinion that the discussion was invalid. Because it has been recreated, a DRV is no longer viable so bringing it here for further discussion as prior closer. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Organizations, Companies, and Nebraska. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I can identify four articles from three sources in this piece that pass the test for independent, significant, non-trivial, secondary coverage under NCORP: Omaha World-Herald, Star-Herald, and two KNEB sources: [1], [2]. (The NCORP trivial mention test does not exclude coverage of rebranding or changes in ownership.) I recognize these were in the article when it was first nominated, so I would have leaned "keep" then as well. (P.S. If Uptown Scottsbluff can't clear AfD with these sources, then the rest of the malls in Nebraska should be nominated too.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raza Development Fund[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Non-notable CFORK. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Subject homepage, fails WP:IS	1. "Homepage". Raza Development Fund. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Database profile, appears to be self sourced, fails WP:SIRS	2. ^ "Raza Development Fund, Inc. - GuideStar Profile". www.guidestar.org. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Service provider page, appears to be self sourced, fails WP:SIRS	3. ^ "Raza Development Fund, Inc". Housing Partnership Network. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Primary, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Annie Donovan". Raza Development Fund. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
From prnewswire, promotional routine news, fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ UnidosUS. "Raza Development Fund (RDF) names Annie Donovan as its new President and CEO". www.prnewswire.com. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
Linkedin profile, fails WP:SIRS	LinkedIn". www.linkedin.com. 2023-05-10. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. No objection to a consensus redirect/merge of properly sourced content to UnidosUS (I would have boldly done so but it would have been reverted). // Timothy :: talk 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a lot of knowledge about english wikipedia guidelines. If it can't stay it can be deleted ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. אקסינו (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Federation[edit]

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

Declined prod. A google news search found only 3 sources of routine coverage. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kerala. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable organization. When you say only 3 sources, in which language did you google? Here are some results, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] --Soman (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English. Most of the sources you found are local and we need wider coverage as per WP:AUD. I would caution using youtube as a source as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As I'm sure you are aware, not all news around the world is in English. The sources here include Mathrubhumi which has a readership of 970,000 daily, Asianet (TV channel), Kerala Kaumudi, etc. If you read WP:AUD it literally says " Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability." If Kerala was located in the US, it would be the second-most populous state after California. --Soman (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grampian Flyers B.C.[edit]

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

This may meet a little notability but in the current state lacks sources. My research showed they are trivially mention in news articles and those, doesn't seem to be notability. Per SE, doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Redirect can also be better if there is any. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Basketball, and Scotland. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Eslamshahr[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV to establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT. If sources are found, please ping me. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Iran. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party for the Development of Carchuna[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence it meets WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Office[edit]

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

This is a borderline WP:A1 case: I am not sure whether the article is talking about one thing (are the offices organs, buildings, programs? It seems to state all three). Please, someone tell me if UNO are an identifiable thing that exist. Remsense诉 10:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Committee of Gagauzia[edit]

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

Fails GNG, Single source is primary, nothing found in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject 'directly and indepth. Nothing sourced in article for a merge, but no objection if there is a consensus for a redirect to Autonomous territorial unit of Gagauzia // Timothy :: talk 02:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Moldova. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This appears to be an incomplete new creation and should have been draftified instead of AfD'd. Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A cursory search shows multiple independent RS covering the subject in English, Romanian and Russian.Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft[edit]

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

Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [17]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".

Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:

This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Transportation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources I find are the Urban Dictionary and various word groups, none of which help notability. Almost survived for 20 yrs in wiki without deletion. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, though the English language sources only show novelty, and the German sources aren't fantastic - however between the tango, the company, and the fact the word is used in German as an example of German compound word usage. [18] is one example. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like merging with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a viable option. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a good idea if there's a couple reliable sources, yeah. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The German wikipedia has more context and sources. This might not need a stand-alone article but there's enough coverage to avoid deletion. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Striking user banned for this behavior (User_talk:Okmrman#Please_stop). Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether it actually existed or not, reliable sources have long reported it and it has gone down in legend as one of the longest words in history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wekiva Presbyterian Church[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG; no sources; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it were verifiable (as stated in article) that this church's webcast truly was the first ever/longest running, that would be notable, but the only source for this claim is a former pastor's personal blog. No other evidence of notability for this church. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSA (basketball)[edit]

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

Not one source meets WP:GNG criteria. Toadspike (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Society Sons of the American Colonists[edit]

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

Could not find any independent, reliable sources covering this group. Toadspike (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing comes up in a WP:BEFORE search and article cites only the subject's own sources. Notability is not WP:INHERITED from National Society Daughters of the American Colonists. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority[edit]

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

There is no indication of any significant contributions from this agency, as it was short-lived and never accomplished its intended purpose, and does not necessarily need an entire article that gives undue detail into this agency. This article should be merged, the topic would be better suited as a brief section in the NHDOT article or some other relevant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldPalChummus (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 May 2024 (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/2024 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Transportation, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the administrative information to New Hampshire Department of Transportation per nom. Details of the individual rail projects are already covered on the relevant rail line articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. As author Ronald Dale Karr put it, New Hampshire has been by far the least supportive of commuter rail out of the six New England states. This authority unfortunately didn't accomplish much of anything, but merits a mention at the NHDOT article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per what my two colleagues suggest above would indeed be the best choice here. TH1980 (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Causey[edit]

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

This is WP:BLP1E. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Texas. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could maybe redirect to Enron scandal, maybe a section like § Trials. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not mentioned there. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are mentioned twice in that section, once in the first paragraph (last name only) and again in the fourth. I do take the point that it's hard to spot on a casual read though, I think it's the only reason I was hesitant about it in the first place. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was doing a ctrl-f on their full name. Just did a ctrl-f on their last name only. In that case I have no issue with a redirect to either Enron scandal#Timeline of downfall (first mention) or Enron scandal#Trials (second and third mention). TarnishedPath^talk 03:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of God Church[edit]

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

Not only does this article currently serve as little more than free advertising for HOG, but also the sourcing is really threadbare (90% self-published/promotional sources) and I could find nothing to show that this organisation meets GNG. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dastak Welfare and Development Organization[edit]

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

I don't see this Pakistani NGO passing the WP:NCORP. Fails WP:GNG as well. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing[edit]

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

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sausalito Yacht Club[edit]

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

Run of the mill local yacht club. Does not meet NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the article is also uncited and appears to be OR. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. VfL Potsdam[edit]

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

Unfortunately the creating editor chose to move this draft a second time to mainspace. Under WP:DRAFTIFY it may not be re-draftified unilaterally, so we are at AfD, something which could have been avoided had they awaited a review. Not ready for mainspace, insufficient secondary sources, currently not proved to pass WP:GNG. Draftify 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Organisms, Sports, Handball, and Germany. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, not ready for mainspace. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 12:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Seems to have been moved to main space by a non-reviewer. Article is currently filled with red links. Shadow311 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Assuming then outcome to be that this be returned to Draft, please will the closer ensure that the AFC review history is retained or that the putative draft is edited to reinstate it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waggle Foundation[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for organisations. PROD contested, citing four sources which, upon investigation, all turned out to contribute nothing to notability:

Parade, CMT and People are puffy tabloid pieces based on a press release (People is the most honest/shameless about this: "It was such an unexpected major expense at an already tough time," Lambert, 36, said in a press release.) They don't even cover Waggle beyond the barest of passing mentions; they're about a separate fund Miranda Lambert set up in partnership.

The Day a local Connecticut newspaper writing about a local business, exactly the sort of coverage WP:AUD excludes from notability considerations.

These sources are so flimsy I am honestly a bit ticked off that the PROD was contested. – Teratix ₵ 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Websites, and Connecticut. – Teratix ₵ 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this does not pass GNG. The Day is a moderately-sized regional paper that can count towards notability for some topics, but local-interest pieces like this do not. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet NORG, references are primary. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RefugePoint[edit]

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

Sourcing is largely not independent and the remaining sourcing fails to provide significant coverage. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Kenya, Switzerland, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Key information about the organization, including its mission statement and how many people it has reached have changed. Abfdesigns (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC) — abfdesigns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"It has a mission statement" is not relevant. Almost every organization has a mission statement. DS (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The mission statement for this organization was recently updated and the new changes reflect this. Editor has updated this wiki to be less promotional/more neutral, as well as added multiple external sources. Alipapp7 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Alipapp7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I opened many of the refs and none supported notability. They were trivial mentions, routine coverage or tangential. This is a small organisation and not suitable for inclusion. Desertarun (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Desertarun, thanks for your feedback. I genuinely want to improve this page and provide accurate and helpful information. I am not sure what the standard for what constitutes a small vs large organization, but I noticed that many organizations that would be considered "peer" organizations to RefugePoint also have pages, such as HIAS, Women's Refugee Commission, Church World Service, and the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP). I see that IRAP's page is flagged as a "stub" and has this note from Wikipedia: "This article about a philanthropic or charitable organization in the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." The page about RefugePoint is an article about a charitable organization, and the edits I suggested were an attempt to help Wikipedia to expand information about the organization and to update outdated information. If there are specific action steps that can be suggested to improve this page and avoid deletion, please advise. Thank you.Abfdesigns (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Armătura Zalău[edit]

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

Despite a large addition, it remains mainly unsourced. Existing sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Romania. UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the club played in Liga II AdrianCioran 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTEAM cares not about what ivision th team played in. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am on the fence on this article too. I would like to see more sources, is there no Romania wiki page for this club? Govvy (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The situation is a bit sad. The club is 100% notable, but User:AdrianCioran can't help but engage in move-warring, and doesn't understand basic Wikipedia policies or the deletion process. Look at the article history: User:Florin1977 tried to keep it in draft space with the edit summary "do not publish yet". AdrianCioran edited disruptively. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'd accept draftify as WP:ATD and that would be community consensus that would enable limited, but escalating, blocks on Adrian. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support such action. Weak understanding of how Wikipedia works and hardly any communication - I'm noting a message written in Romanian on his talk page half a year ago, which translates to: "Don't create pages if you don't know how, because the moderators will delete them". Geschichte (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Same situation than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CS Auxerre Lugoj. Svartner (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - as above, not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 18:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable even though their successful period was pre-internet, can even find recent articles such as [19]. SportingFlyer T·C 05:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: A pretty significant football club with some sourcing and notability, but I'd like to see something better than that with more reliable sourcing. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation[edit]

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

Article is completely unsourced and subject does not seem to be notable. Quick Google News skim shows only two vague news articles about this Foundation [20] [21]. GoldRomean (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - written at a time when sources were helpful but not always neccesary. No evidence of notability in the current climate. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AHRC New York City[edit]

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

WP:NORG and WP:GNG. No independent sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search. Daask (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:SIGCOV. Google scholar yields a number of scholarly sources that are paywalled. In particular, there's a book "State Association for Retarded Children and New York State Government" which is not available online. Archive.org also has a lot of hits but many of them are unavailable for borrowing. I was able to find at least two multi-paragraph treatments of the article subject (plus the Autism one which is brief). It gets a lot of mentions on archive - there's probably more significant coverage out there.

Urban community care for the developmentally disabled (1980) three paragraphs about the organization
Parental voices and controversies in Autism (2011) half a paragraph about the organization (fulltext on Researchgate)
Mental retardation in America : a historical reader at least two paragraphs starting a chapter at 351, plus more on pages 358-59 which aren't available to me

Oblivy (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Brigade Singapore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability guidelines for organizations; the only source in the article is a primary source connected to the organization. ~~Additionally, I don't think this is in-depth coverage we're looking to estabilsh notability!~~ ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the strength of added references. Patronage by the country's president is an argument in favour of notability as an important part of youth culture in Singapore. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Eastmain. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Men's Roller Derby[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT and has for 14 years. A search in news returns the coveted "1 result". Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found barely enough RS for notability, but the sourcing is still admittedly thin. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the coverage passes WP:AUD here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't sports teams exempt from WP:ORG (and thus exempt from AUD)? The second sentence of WP:ORG says, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. Sports teams qualify for notability by meeting WP:GNG, according to WP:NSPORT, which says, in boldface, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grand'mere Eugene. Thanks for improving the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Anti-Imperialist Platform[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Despite the impression given by having 21 references, there is zero independent coverage of the orgaanization much less GNG coverage. They are ostensibly a communist organization but their main thing seems to be that Russia's war in Ukraine is just and a struggle against imperialism. Of the 21 references, 7 are flatly themselves (either their website or a copy of a speech they gave) 1 is a YouTube video of an interview of one of their people which is basically another speech, 3 don't even mention them, 3 give a very brief mention of them and 7 are criticisms of them by communist organizations. I also could not find any real sources on them, and I looked harder than usual. The article is basically sourced to themselves but then does mention the criticisms. So no real sources on them means no wp:notability from which to build an article. If there were actual sources, this might be an article worth having....for example they might reveal that this is some type of a Russia-created ploy which is trying to dupe communist organizations. But right now there is zero independent coverage of them in sources. Interestingly the organization's website has no "about us" or "our history" section, no contact info (address, phone number etc.) except a gmail email address. It's a stretch to even call it "sourced to themselves" because the "about self" info in the article (eg when it was founded) is not even on their website. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another editor has added additional references. Some other references are newspapers and news sites, admittedly biased ones. including TASS. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the new references. Nothing new regarding the main issue, still no independent coverage of the organization much less GNG coverage. I actually WANT that coverage to be found and thus for the article to exist. There are lots of critiques of them and of their positions by communist organizations. Maybe that's enough to keep via WP:IAR North8000 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lack of independent, non-partisan coverage of the subject of this article. Although there is certainly controversy among communists over the ideological stances of this organization, this is of little relevance to readers who are not communists or otherwise familiar with the ideological positions of this group. Further, this organization is more-or-less an ideological extension of the CPGB-ML, so any criticism that does or will exist from third-parties would likely be more focused on that particular party or any other major member parties. SociusMono1976 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

The presence of criticisms by other communist organizations suggests a level of engagement within a specific community or ideological sphere that could warrant further examination. These criticisms from within the community provide context and demonstrate that the organization has sparked discussion and controversy, which is a form of coverage and recognition. While some editors question the sources of the critiques, this is not uncommon in the coverage of niche or emerging political movements, especially those with a specific ideological leaning. The inclusion of external criticisms — even if from ideologically aligned groups — does serve to broaden the discussion about the platform beyond its self-representation. Additionally, the fact that these external sources bother to critique the organization lends weight to its relevance in its sphere. Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not strictly require that all articles at all times must have extensive media coverage. For niche political organizations, the requirement can be met through significant coverage in specialized publications or through the impact demonstrated in inter-group communications and critiques. Wikipedia's goal is to provide a comprehensive database of knowledge that includes all verifiable perspectives, including those from smaller or less mainstream entities. The existence of an article on a potentially lesser-known but ideologically significant organization like the World Anti-Imperialist Platform contributes to this goal. The community has a strong preference for improving articles rather than deleting them when possible. If the current references are deemed insufficient, the appropriate response would be to tag the article for needing additional citations from independent sources, rather than outright deletion. The inclusion of ruling political parties from countries like Venezuela, Guinea-Bissau, and North Macedonia elevates the organization's political significance. These countries' involvement is not only a testament to the platform's influence but also to its relevance in international politics. This kind of international collaboration among ruling parties inherently suggests a level of notability that deserves recognition and documentation on Wikipedia. The participation of such significant political entities justifies an argument for the preservation and further development of the article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability do not strictly require exhaustive coverage in mainstream media if the subject can be demonstrated to have significant impact or involvement by notable entities. The involvement of ruling parties should be considered a form of significant coverage. The organization’s connections to countries with notable geopolitical profiles—especially Venezuela, known for its significant international political interactions—underscore the importance of the platform in understanding global geopolitical dynamics. This aspect alone provides a substantial basis for keeping the article, as it serves as a critical piece of the puzzle in understanding international alignments and ideological conflicts. Deleting or undermining the presence of such an article could result in a significant gap in the available information about a notable international coalition that influences political opinions and actions. It is crucial for Wikipedia to represent such entities accurately and comprehensively to fulfill its mission as an encyclopedia that covers the full spectrum of human knowledge. Rather than deletion, this situation presents a clear opportunity for improvement. Encouraging contributors to seek additional independent secondary sources that discuss the platform's activities and influence could enhance the article's quality and reliability. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's principles of verifiability and neutrality while ensuring that significant political entities are appropriately represented. Castroonthemoon (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds on this. Even if it is just a mysterious front organization for Russian operatives (which is my current best guess it is and the Greek Communist party seems to hint at [22] ) then perhaps it would be good to have an article if only to eventually expose it. But to build an article we need sources to build it from and we basically have zero sources about this mysterious organization. We have them talking about themselves, we have communist organizations critiquing their stances and a few short "we attended an event of theirs" sources. The WP:notability requirment basically is "we have sources which cover the subject". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you mention that. The primary challenge with the subject material is that it’s a supranational organization composed mainly of communist parties. It’s not a centralized entity but rather a congress of 50 parties and organizations, multiple of which form or take part in the governments of their respective countries. Supranational organizations often do not make headlines, as evidenced by the noticeable lack of notable sources in the list of Political international articles. Among the notable articles covering the platform that I’ve found, I can’t use them as they are from Russia Today or other sources deemed less reliable by Wikipedia. This highlights a broader issue of sourcing when it comes to international and especially non-Western political movements. The absence of coverage in mainstream Western media should not be a default barrier to notability, particularly when the subject has a significant impact on the political or ideological landscape of multiple countries. Another issue with this organization is that it includes only a few English-speaking organizations, which explains why outlets like MSNBC, CNN, etc. have not covered it. However, this does not inherently diminish its notability or significance. The substantial opposition to the World Anti-Imperialist Platform (WAP) from other parties underscores its notability. As you mentioned the Communist Party of Greece, it's also worth noting the emerging split in the international communist context between KKE-aligned anti-Russian parties and pro-Russian WAP parties, a division that should be crucial to document. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm of two minds of this.....actually I sort of want this article to exist. But let me play devil's advocate on critiquing your argument. It is a mysterious organization which has gotten some communist organizations so declare thermselves members or attend their conferences. You speak as if it is some organization consisting of those members, but there is no evidence or coverage of it really being that. There is zero evidence/coverage of it being a real organization governed by those members. Even on their own website, there is nothing indicating that it is an actual organization. No leaders or officers, no mechanism of how it is governed or how the participants play into that governance. So how are we to cover this entity with absolutely zero independent coverage of it as an entity? North8000 (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we strip out or reword that areas where they have been used as a source on themselves this would become an edge case keep-able article, waiting for coverage of the organization per se by independent sources. I'll try that. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

York Housing Association[edit]

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

York Housing Association no longer exists and it appears that it was only ever one of many housing associations serving the Yorkshire area. It merged in 2022 with Leeds and Yorkshire Housing Association to form 54North - now (May 2024)a subsidiary of Karbon Homes (https://54northhomes.co.uk/about-us/). The page would need completely rewritten - but probably better (if it proved notable) to create a new page based on Karbon Homes. Newhaven lad (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if it has been merged into another association, the references in the article show that it is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster Chess Leagues[edit]

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

The Leinster Chess Leagues article, and the articles I am combining in my nomination below that represent to tropies of the different leagues for the main article, fail the test of independent notability for each article and further, these articles are large WP:NOTDATABASE violations and full of WP:OR. This content would be better suited on the website of the organization and not Wikipedia as the pages often boil down to league rules and not secondary independent coverage.

Also nomintated for deletion:

Thanks, microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, Organizations, and Ireland. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have written a reply in the Talk page attached to this article. If you cannot read that reply I will copy it here. With thanks, sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You should copy your reply here yourself. A closing admin may not (and is not necessarily expected to) search for comments placed outside the AfD discussion thread. You could consider leaving out the parts, of your comment, which are unrelated to the concerns raised in the AfD nomination. Guliolopez (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnPDLoughran are you associated at all with the Leinster Chess Leagues or any of their associated divisions? microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Marcus, copying my reply here as directed. Please excuse me as I am new to editing Wikipedia, and was confused as to where to post it. Some of the help files are confusing and mention the Talk area as a way to respond. Can I ask, should I prepend this reply with something like {{MicrobiologyMarcus}}? Here is my edited reply and answer to your query.

I was shocked to see that you were recommending the deletion of a large number of articles relating to chess in Ireland. These are valuable resources not only of current but also of historic interest, albeit to a small population of chess players. The Leinster Chess Leagues page links the different articles including one on the Armstrong Cup which I read with interest. It started in 1888 and may be one of the oldest such competitions in the world. The information in these articles is supported by two independent Irish chess history websites which are not affiliated to the Leinster Leagues. They quote many independent sources of information including newspaper articles, one written in 1888. If you delete these articles you will delete a valuable resource. Because the chess playing population is so small it is difficult to source more independent references, although I am continuing to work on this with collaborators, and I would be glad of advice on ways to improve this. Needless to say I am new to publishing in an encyclopaedia. One of the articles which first spurred my interest was the article on Chess in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Regarding my links with the Leinster Chess Union. Firstly I am a player on a team that competes in the leagues, and currently the chairperson of Skerries Chess Club. I have no official membership of the LCU. Our club pays them a small fee to participate in the leagues each year. While it is true that Skerries did win the BEA Cup one year, it was before I was a member, so I had no personal interest in writing that first article. I added the article on the Leinster Chess Leagues after that simply to link various articles on each league together, and to avoid duplication of material within each league article. The reason I wrote the article on the BEA Cup was that we were given it by accident. Because it was a cup which had been donated in 1972 and passed from club to club since then and miraculously survived I felt it was worthy of note, so I did quite a lot of research, still ongoing, to discover the winners each season and record them in the article as well as taking a picture of this, in my opinion, priceless artefact, before getting its base repaired. I am of course open to suggestions as to how to improve the articles (BEA Cup or Leagues article) but I would be deeply disappointed to see these articles disappear, even moreso if their deletion was to have a knock on effect of causing the deletion of other valuable articles, which I had no hand in writing, on the other Leauges: Armstrong etc. With thanks, yours sincerely JohnPDLoughran (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two independent sources in the article are WP:BLOGS and are therefore not reliable. I was able to find a few brief news items in the Irish Independent: [23] [24], but it doesn't seem like quite enough on its own to demonstrate notability for the leagues, much less for the individual divisions. I would either redirect everything to Irish Chess Union#Team competitions or otherwise redirect/merge the divisions into the Leinster Chess Leagues article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that the blogs cited old newspapers. If these sources can be confirmed, the individual divisions might very well be notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are several titles here to consider, my own recommendation is to:

Delete O'Sullivan Cup. This article, on the seventh (childrens?) tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient reliable sources to even support its text. Not to mind a claim to notability. Under any applicable criteria. (The article itself states that there aren't sufficient sources to establish what happened in relatively recent runnings of the competition. I mean, we're relying on this random picture to "guess" that the people (children?) pictured might have come third in 2015? Seriously?)
Delete BEA Cup. This article, on the fifth tier of an amateur/regional chess competition, doesn't have sufficient sources to support its text. The author (within the text) states that there aren't even sources to establish who won the competition on any given year. That we reliant upon "reading the engravings off a cup" (and using that as a basis for content AND justification a stand-alone article) is a very clear indication that WP:SIGCOV is not met. By a significant margin. The thing (the cup) cannot be a reference for itself or represent coverage of itself. It's just backwards and bizarre.
Redirect Armstrong Cup, Heidenfeld Trophy and Ennis Shield. And maybe O'Hanlon Cup. Either to Leinster Chess Leagues (if that title is kept). Or to Irish_Chess_Union#Team competitions (if not). Similar to the above, I have significant concerns with the reliability and accuracy of the sources and content in those articles. And do not see any justification for the project being a WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTWEBHOST repo for previous winners of these amateur regional chess competitions. However, there is some limited coverage - to just about justify a redirect as an WP:ATD. And to mention the competitions WP:WITHIN the target article. For example, the Armstrong Cup is mentioned (almost always in passing and always/only in regional newspapers), in places like this, this and this. Which could justify covering it in either the Leinster Chess Leagues or Irish Chess Union articles. And perhaps leaving a redirect.
Weak keep Leinster Chess Leagues (or redirect to Irish_Chess_Union#Competitions). While I'm not swayed by the creator's arguments ("I'm shocked", "It's useful", "supported by 2x special interest websites"), there is a small smattering of limited coverage in some local sources. Like this, this and this or this. If kept, as a standalone title, the article needs significant work however.

My 2x cents anyway. FWIW. Guliolopez (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment with many, many thanks to @Guliolopez for collecting a list of sources. I want to preface this by saying I am trying to be fair and impartial and stave off concerns that I am attacking a particular chess league or its members and, should the evidence arrive that any or all of the articles I nominated are WP:Notable, I will gladly change my vote. Please let me know, I would be happy to add to the following table. As it stands, I still believe the articles are a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE and would need to be reworked, but I am a big believer in WP:THREE. With that said:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:MicrobiologyMarcus
"Garden squad win promotion". Irish Independent. 4 April 2012.		coverage about a team winning a match to advance to the Ennis Shield, a part of Leinster Chess league, does not surpass trivial coverage of either of those subjects.	✘ No
"Chess Club". Irish Independent. 11 March 2009.		? I would evaluate this as significant coverage of the tournament/event, I don't now if I would consider that coverage to be of the league itself, or if coverage of this extent would be inherited to the organization, such to meet WP:NCORP	? Unknown
"Chess club wins promotion to division two after dramatic final round of matches". Irish Independent. 14 June 2023.		as the first, coverage is of a club with trivial mentions of Leinster Chess League and Ennis Shield	✘ No
"It's checkmate for local club at Leinster Finals". Irish Independent. 11 May 2011.		? I would say this may meet SIGCOV of Leinster Chess Championships, which again is not the leagues. The extend of the coverage of that in the article is The cup was first competed for as far back as 1912 and has been won by a distinguished list of top Irish chess players over the years. The rest is, as before, coverage of the tournament/event with the same inheritance concerns.	? Unknown
"Chess club move into history books". Irish Independent. 24 April 2003.		subject of the coverage is again a club with passing trivial mentions of Heidenfeld trophy and Armstrong Cup	✘ No
"Chess mates descend on Bray". Irish Independent. 17 March 2010.		? strongest argument for SIGCOV of the tournamentevent articles in my opinion, coverage of the 203-word article is split equally among the event and then between the season structure of Leinster Chess Union League ("The league begins in September every year and lasts until March.") and the history of Armstrong Cup ("...new owners of the infamous Armstrong Cup, which was first presented in the 1888-1889 league, therefore making it one of the oldest sporting competitions in Ireland.")	? Unknown
"Chess club has come a long way over 25 years". Irish Independent. 3 August 2005.	interview with a member club member	? this is definetly SIGCOV of a club with probably acceptable mentions of Leinster Leagues ("...in the Leinster Leagues that run from September to March each year.")	✘ No
"Chess Club finally secure Ennis Shield". Irish Independent. 8 May 2002.		coverage of a club with mentions of the Ennis Shield, same inheritance concerns with all tournament/event articles, but even weaker argument here as the article itself isn't about the event.	✘ No
"Your weekly sporting club notes". Irish Independent. 3 October 2006.		trivial coverage of the tournament/event Heidenfeld Shield mentioned, nothing in depth about subject or organization	✘ 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}}.

I would gladly add to the above table if sources are provided, or if you believe my assessment of any of the above are wrong, I would be happy to discuss. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the sources and analysis done to date in the table, I feel the like strongest !keep argument would be to have a Leinster Chess Union League as that seems to be the most frequently used identifier of the WP:NCORP, but I think this would come down to how strong the passing mentions are of the leagues in the event coverage above, and whether the coverage of the event is WP:Inherited to the Chess Union League itself or not, and whether the coverage satisfies as significant; I'm leaning no, based on my reading of WP:SIGCOV:

Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

but I would understand where this might be interpreted differently here. Given that, then all the other articles could be redirects (see WP:CHEAP) and the ones which are sourced by only event coverage could have their own sections on the main article. I think that would be the strongest possible argument for keep, however, given the current references. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A chess blog website claims that newspapers such as the Irish Times and Irish Press have written some sort of coverage about the various leagues decades ago, e.g. for the Branagan Cup. I have no idea what this coverage looks like, whether it's also trivial, etc. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting. With respect to WP:OFFLINE, I can't help but feel as if these were present and properly cited in the article, they would be suitable, but to mass copy and paste them into an article from their collection on the organisation's website feels less-than-inline with WP:V. Given the context of the page, I would suspect someone has gone back (probably very labouriously) to compile the records and statistics of the page, but I doubt they are significant coverage of the organisation itself in such a manner to establish WP:NCORP. They would, however, be suitable to cite the (probably WP:NOTDATABASE violation that is the laundry) list of past winners, in such a manner to satisfy WP:OR concerns—that is, the ones that cite news articles and not tweets. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta[edit]

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a defacto consulate, and not the same level as an embassy. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles regarding the Taiwanese offices in Ho Chi Minh City and also São Paulo. Would those also fall under this blanket reason? Toadboy123 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if they fail GNG, yes. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toadboy123 embassies, consulates and other diplomatic offices must meet WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to merge? Also of course ATD is only part of the deletion policy. The eighth point at WP:DEL-REASON which describes valid criteria for deletion, states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is a valid reason to delete. AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect gives editors like Toadboy123 (talk · contribs), the article's creator, the option of doing a selective merge of content to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions. Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta discusses the subject's location; how it was established on 1 March 1979, the day after the signing of this communiqué; what its former name was; what states it represents; and the cultural center it oversees. Some of this content could be merged to the target article. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Securian Canada[edit]

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

The subsidiary doesn't seem notable. This page can be a redirect to Securian Financial Group. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate business entities with separate governance structures from what I can tell and have reference on the Government of Canada website when I was digging around for references. While they share a name, I don't think the connection is that strong beyond that, seems like a worthwhile distinction for people who want to recognize the two entities especially when they have separate reputations (Securian Canada for example has poor reviews vs US which seems to be neutral). Brendanphilp (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I used to work for them, so I'll avoid this discussion. But yes, most of this is correct, they did insurance for Sears Canada, Hudson's Bay and Capital One (credit insurance and direct marketing items). Used to be the direct marketing division of JC Penney, then it was sold to Aegon, then sold again. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage here [25] and here [26]. Then here [ https://www.dmnews.com/penney-sells-dm-services-to-aegon/]. The article now seems to gloss over most of their history, which was "colourful" to be generous. A proper article on the company here should at least include the JC Penney and Aegon history. I've poked around the Canadian company's website, they're the subsidiary of the US Securian; they also tend to gloss over that for the same reasons I've outlined. They sell insurance using non-traditional methods (again, I'm trying to be diplomatic, but it seems to be about the same quality as when I was there in the JC Penney days), and even then, it was direct marketing/telemarketing, with all the "fun" that comes with that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I think the JC Penney references are worth including if that's the case. I think maybe the tactics they use should be omitted unless we can reference that somehow like a newspaper article etc. I'll have a poke around again if there's anything I can reference around that but I didn't see anything on the first pass for including as a "controversy" section so to speak. Brendanphilp (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I've dug into it a bit over my morning coffee, it looks like maybe we're confusing two entities. What I can find here is Securian Canada used to be Canadian Premier Life, not JC Penney or Aegon. I did find this: https://www.advisor.ca/industry-news/industry/cpp-owned-wilton-re-buys-transamericas-canadian-business/ which has a same parent company that was purchased but they look like two separate entities in that deal. Maybe still worth referencing. Brendanphilp (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think given the above additional, that it's worthy of its own listing compared to rolled up into US parent. If it makes sense to add the https://www.advisor.ca/industry-news/industry/cpp-owned-wilton-re-buys-transamericas-canadian-business/ article to help add some context about these acquisitions, I think that would be helpful.

I haven't personally been able to find external sources to validate the JC Penney part of the discussion or their "business practices" Oaktree b referenced but if someone finds something, happy to include as well.

Let me know your thoughts! Brendanphilp (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Privateers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team easily passes GNG due to substantial news coverage in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Here are a few of the more recent news on the team. [27][28][29][30][31] I question whether the nominator completed WP:BEFORE on this nomination. I'm baffled what is meant by "Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct". As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article might be poorly sourced in its current state, but can easily be improved. Flibirigit (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed complete a before search. I found numerous news articles regarding the move of the team, all based on press releases. I found routine coverage, e.g. of matches. I found articles based on what a spokesperson for the team said, without WP:SECONDARY analysis. I found nothing that was WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT to satisfy GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Flibirigit. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United States, Surabaya[edit]

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Indonesia, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 of the 6 sources are primary. Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indonesia–United_States_relations#Diplomatic_missions. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Micro-denomination of three churches with no reliable sources to establish notability via significant coverage. All existing sources fail to establish notability:

Link - Primary Source
Link - Appears to be a reliable source with coverage on page 15, but note on page 2 that the author of the coverage on page 15 is/was a senior leader within the subject of the article and thus this source is not independent.
Link. Self-published source of questionable reliability, not updated for a decade.
Link Primary source
Link - Erroneously cited and fails verification. The citation describes as "Doctrines of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church"; the actual title of the paper is different.
Link - Fails verification for notability; does not reference subject.
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Trivial/passing mention of denomination in longer discussion of one of its member churches
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages. Fails verification for notability.
Link - Primary source

Editors arguing for "Keep" in the 2022 non-consensus AfD discussion depended heavily on 2 and 5; however, as I've shown here, 2 is not an independent source for notability, and 5 fails verification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct micro-denomination that existed for less than 10 years. It is not included in any of the authoritative encyclopedic sources (e.g. Melton). Can find no sources to establish notability under GNG or NORG. Existing sources in the article are unreliable or unverifiable. My analysis follows:

Link - This page is content copied from a self-published primary source formerly associated with the subject.
Link - Online directory page; equivalent to citing the Yellow Pages
Link - Primary source
Banner of Truth magazine. This magazine is not available online (see here) and thus this citation is unverifiable.
British Church Newspaper. Likewise unavailable online and thus unverifiable.
Link - Primary source
Link - Discussion board; user-generated content.
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Primary source
Link - Self-published primary source

During the 2006 AfD, which resulted in no consensus, those arguing for "keep" tended not to make policy-based arguments. Additionally, they specifically pointed to the British Church Newspaper and Banner of Truth Magazine citations as proving notability. After 18 years, however, these publications remain unavailable online (including in the Internet Archive) and thus cannot be verified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Invalid reasoning. A source that is not online remains verifiable by a trip to a library. Dead-tree sources are perfectly legitimate. And a denomination being defunct really doesn't matter. If it was notable once, it remains notabvle. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the 2006 discussion, this is the full text in one of the dead-tree sources: "On January 13-14, 2006, a new Presbyterian denomination was formed. During delegate meetings in Philadelphia, PA, the body adopted the name Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS). The founding churches came together because of perceived equivocation towards important biblical doctines and because of tolerance of excesses in contemporary worship in other Presbyterian denominations." Sounds like WP:TRIVIALMENTION to me. I've made every effort to verify its existence; however, the comprehensive Banner of Truth magazine archive does not include this citation (see page 99, where no such article is referenced in the April 2006 issue). The WP:BURDEN is on the editor who added the material to add a verifiable, reliable source, and this isn't. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the World Bank, London[edit]

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

Contested PROD of an individual office of the World Bank. No other office has its own page. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect which is what I said should happen when I deprodded this. I'm just not certain what the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposer of a merge or redirect cannot identify a target, that's a rather significant problem. You deprodded the article but failed to suggest a credible alternative to deletion. In that case, the article should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, merge what and to where? AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG and not worth redirecting/merging. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the building that it's located in - originally assumed it was about the building, but it's about an office in the building which clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is wrong, the World Bank no long has an office at Millbank Tower. AusLondonder (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning towards deletion since a redirect target has not been identified. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Millbank Tower#Occupants as WP:ATD - plausible search term to existing article (unless I'm missing something bleeding obvious)? Ingratis (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we redirect to their former office location? That makes absolutely no sense. ATD doesn't mean we can never delete an article and should instead create incorrect and pointless redirects just so we don't have to ever delete anything. AusLondonder (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there is no point redirecting to a former office location. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because: (a) it's not a newly-created redirect - see WP:R#KEEP #4: the article has been there for 11 years; (b) WP:R#KEEP #5 - just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean it isn't to someone; (c) in general WP:REDIRECT - the balance is to keep redirects unless they meet specific criteria for deletion, and this one doesn't; (d) why on earth would anyone come to Wikipedia to find the current London address of the World Bank? they are more likely to want reminding of its previous far higher profile location: Millbank Tower is notable, whereas 1 Tudor Street (as yet) is not; and (e) in any case the WB London current address is included in both articles.
I'll underline that I'm not advocating keeping the article itself. Ingratis (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ridiculous and blatantly misleading redirect. How does it meet WP:RPURPOSE? I'm actually quite confused by your reasoning. In the unlikely event someone is looking for information on the London office of the World Bank how does redirecting them to Millbank Tower assist? Frankly a redirect in these circumstances would meet multiple criteria at WP:R#DELETE. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because apart from anything else the Millbank Tower article includes the current address of the World Bank in London (which is nowhere else on Wikipedia, I think), if there is anyone who is really too dim to use the World Bank's own website instead. We've reached the usual conclusion of a Wikipedia discussion - "I say it is" vs "I say it isn't" - and there'll be no further progress, so I'm leaving it there. Ingratis (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The key reason - there are no other branches on Wikipedia. And the references are poor enough. Delete without redirecting is also a good idea. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
obviously fails GNG

N 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:John Canning Studios

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 Babcock–Macomb House. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources and no in-depth coverage available. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Ivory Coast, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Babcock-Macomb House, its location. The fact that it is now the embassy is stated there. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Babcock–Macomb House per Mangoe. Excellent example of a subject that benefits from consolidation with an article covering the same topic. BD2412 T 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rugby League XIII[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page has a single reference which is an error 404, context is minimal, and the article is missing anything the team actually did, fails WP:GNG Mn1548 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (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/2024 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Rugby league. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rugby Football League. Not enough content to justify a stand-alone article in its current state, but it's a plausible search term as the team played several fixtures in the previous century against national teams such as Australia and France. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2024 (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 Republican movement (Ireland). Discussion on a better redirect target may proceed on the target's Talk page, and/or on Talk:Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group). Owen× ☎ 11:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican Movement[edit]

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

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.

Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) per above reasoning. // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Proposed deletions[edit]

Categories[edit]