Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Organizations and social programs. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Organizations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:ORG.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Organizations deletion

Waterloo Co‑operative Residence Inc.

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

Article about a student housing cooperative, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. As always, organizations are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage in third-party reliable sources from a geographic range beyond the purely local -- but five of the nine footnotes here are directly affiliated primary sources that aren't support for notability (its self-published content about itself from either its own website or its pre-web newsletter, and a directory entry on the website of an umbrella organization that it's a member of) and a sixth comes from the university student newspaper of the university whose students this co-op serves, which still isn't independent of the topic and thus doesn't count toward GNG at all.
And while the three remaining footnotes are proper media coverage, they still aren't building a particular strong case for inclusion: they're all just going "Newspaper, Date" without providing the title of any specific content in that newspaper on that date, and two of them are from the local daily newspaper and thus aren't counting for anything toward the ORGDEPTH test.
So there's only one footnote here ("National" Post 1967, which is really the Financial Post since the National Post didn't exist under that name until the 1990s) that's starting to build a proper case for notability, but just one hit of extralocal coverage isn't enough to get this over ORGDEPTH all by itself.
This just doesn't state anything about the co-op that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage in Canadian media.[1], [2], [3]. Last one's probably the best. That and the Financial Post article should be enough for notability; it was one of the first such residences in Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's the Financial Post article [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I'm struggling to see how after reading the 1967 Financial Post article, that User:Bearcat nominated this. That's very in-depth coverage 55-years ago, and easy enough to find more recent articles, as has been done above. Perhaps the nomination can be withdrawn? Nfitz (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Youth Development Foundation

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

Non-notable NGO, probably does good work, but that's not our notability definition. This was declined a few times at AfC, then recreated directly in the main space. The sources are just press releases and therefore don't come even close to satisfying WP:ORG / WP:GNG, and BEFORE finds nothing better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Jdcomix (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pleasing organisation, fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reykjavík International School

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

I'm unable to locate any sourcing that meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Iceland. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to the article, the school existed for 3 years and only had about a dozen students each year. The only source that isn't their own website is a government statistical database. Search results generally are referring to International School of Iceland or are Wikipedia mirrors. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the fence about this one at the moment, which is not where I expected to be given the tiny number of children and short period the school was open. I have three additional sources, which I'm fairly sure are all about this specific school:

This is a passing mention of the school in a brief article about a child winning a prize. It does not add to notability and I'm mentioning it for completeness.

This, in Vísir, is significant coverage in a reliable, independent source.

This also looks like decent coverage in a reliable source, Morgunblaðið.

Even accepting both those, we only have the defunct school website, archive here, and the stats report - the former definitely being a primary source, the latter more of a grey area - so not reaching WP:THREE, but will see what others say. Tacyarg (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for notability requires more than passing mentions. The Iceland Review is a passing mention about a student coming second in a competition. This in Visir is a "puff profile" that relies entirely on information provided by the school and their principal, it has no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject which is part of the criteria for "Independent Content". Finally this magazine article in Morgunblaðið suffers the same faults - a "puff profile" which relies entirely on information provided by the teachers/school and with no in-depth "Independent Content" from a source unaffiliated with the school. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Weak keep. The weekly paper Reykjavík had a couple of stories regarding the founding of the school (Nýr einkaskóli í undirbúningi and Tókst ekki hjá Reykjavík). This is another story from Morgunblaðið. Also seems to have been known as Alþjóðaskólinn í Reykjavík. Alvaldi (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topics require in-depth "Independent Content" to meet the criteria for establishing notability and we do not consider information regurgitated from company documents or interviews, etc. Nýr einkaskóli í undirbúningi simply repeats information from the founding docs files on incorporation (says it several times in the article). This story in Timarit is about the school (unsuccessfully to date) looking for a place from which to operate and yes, the school is mentioned, but it contains insufficient in-depth information about the school. This other story in Timarit is reporting on the signing of the contract for the school and reports on who attended, where it is based, the number of students and teachers, the canteen, the subjects and the length of contract - all information provided by the school during this event and no "Independent Content". HighKing⁺⁺ 14:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YNAB

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, included sources are mostly regurgitated PR or reviews of the service or app, not in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of these sources look paid. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since this is the same nomination reason used for Splitwise, I'll use the same keep rationale. If the issue is that the lead is phrased as focusing on the company not the app, then let's just change that. Absolutely no reason to jump to deletion here when the app is very clearly notable. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 16:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Note that this is the second nomination for this article - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Need a Budget (2013, closed as no consensus). Agree with User:Bsoyka - the application has sufficient coverage in secondary sources. The article does need some work on integrating the available sources in a more meaningful way. Dreamyshade (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Capital

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, none of the included sources meet the criteria. They are a mixture of sources that rely entirely on interviews/information provided by the company/execs or regurgitated PR, none include in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadabam's Hospitals

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing sourcing simply regurgitates announcements and PR and has no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Medicine, and India. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerade-Team Pilipinas

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

This is basically just the Philippine men's national team playing under a corporate sponsor's name. See Articles for deletion/Gilas Pilipinas program.

The team did not play as a club (like in the case of its iteration as RP-Hapee Toothpaste in the PBA that would warrant a separate article for this as a quasi-ballclub. Its essentially just a labeled national team which only purely competed in national team tournaments as Powerade. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide University Liberal Club

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Trivial mention in the media in connection with other people or events, but lacking the in-depth coverage necessary. Seems to have been created largely for advertising. AusLondonder (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is what I'd expect from any university club, the majority of which do not pass notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 00:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Coverage in Google news rather routine. LibStar (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MD Bank

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

Article was boldly created by a now blocked PAID editor after I had declined it at AFC for lacking reliable sources. After doing some searching I still don't find sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Nobody (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Myanmar. Nobody (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G5 Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just tag it with speedy deletion under WP:G5 Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G5 Felicia (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 doesn't apply here because the user created and moved the article to mainspace before they were blocked. G5 usually only applies to pages created by sockpuppets, and there is no evidence of that here. C F A 💬 16:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NCORP. Found a few press releases under their previous name and that's about it. C F A 💬 16:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not Dead Yet (nonprofit)

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

The article outlines no particular notablity of the group. While sources establish its existence, no notable work or membership is described. One of the articles actually describes it as a "Tiny Disability-rights Group". There is simply nothing of particular note here. SecretName101 (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a few more sources on Google, including on the Library of Congress Website [5] and some academic papers, but the name makes it quite hard to search for as a lot of stuff comes up just using the express in the context of assisted suicide. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 01:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Notcharizard Library of Congress page is only archived copies of the org's website as part of the LOC's web archive project. Not necessarily something that establishes note for the org SecretName101 (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetted officer (Kenya)

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

A gazetted officer simply means a government employee whose appointment gets notified in the Gazette. I don't think it warrants a standalone article, WP:PAGEDECIDE. Article is also uncited and not received WP:SIGCOV with only single reference, which is barely reliable (fails WP:RS). Hence, looks like article is made out of original research. TheProEditor11 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Kenya. TheProEditor11 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kenya Gazette. the content is unsourced but sources exist that show the term is in use [6] [7]. But this article would be merely a definition; discussing it at Kenya Gazette is sufficient. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manchukuo Government

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

This seems to have been a joke in 2009, and now it's over. WP:N isn't temporary, but 2/3rds of the sources aren't reliable or aren't primary about the topic, leaving what I count as three-to-five bemused NOWNews/Ming Pao pieces that read more like Buzzfeed than Buzzfeed News. Maybe that sounds like enough to others, but given the facile substance I really don't think they need an article. Remsense诉 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Royalty and nobility, and China. Remsense诉 10:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to make myself late for work again so not really much time to look for sources etc., but my initial impression is a slight leaning merge to Manchukuo § In popular culture. Please remind me to circle back this week. I've got a lot going on and will likely forget. Folly Mox (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There aren't more sources. Everything I'm finding with keywords in English or Chinese falls into one of three buckets: 1. Wikimedia sites 2. "official" websites of the group 3. false positives.
This does seem to be some kind of joke, or perhaps an earnestly serious effort by a half dozen college students with no self-awareness, that reads as a joke to everyone else. In any case, it certainly doesn't deserve treatment as a government in exile nor as a legitimate independence movement.
It is – to me – extremely funny that the second emperor elected by the group was a kid in New York with no claims of ties to Manchuria, and I think the absurdity of this whole thing deserves preservation, probably against content guidelines, so I'm landing at merge, and like Microplastic Consumer's merge target suggestion below equally well as my own suggestion above. Folly Mox (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for funsies that the zh.wp article is disambiguated with (Internet Country), and ==See also==s Micronation. Folly Mox (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Manchurian Nationalism, the government in exile doesn't seem to be very serious. Seems to be either run by trolls or Japanese nationalists as opposed to a serious independence movement Microplastic Consumer (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strangers Helping Strangers

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

Eighteen years without a source on the page for this local charity is enough. A Google news search yields only passing mentions of the organization, and uses of the common phrase in other contexts. BD2412 T 22:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Vermont. BD2412 T 22:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 18 years is too long of a grace period Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sathya Sai Loka Seva Trust Educational Institutions

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

This article has been around for 15 years and has not included reliable secondary sources showing notability (and I am unable to find any). Not to mention it's written in a promotional tone. I tried to remove the non-neutral wording but it does not leave much to indicate significance. ... discospinster _talk 17:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Karnataka. ... discospinster _talk 17:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps the schools it runs have notability (I did not check that) but this article reads as a plain promo piece. The Banner talk 17:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Underwater Archaeology Association

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

I have been unable to find secondary, independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this association. The only coverage is in news stories about ships they've found, and those focus on the ships, not the association. The founder of this association might be notable, since he is a published author, but notability is not inherited. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Archaeology, Environment, and Wisconsin. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Educational Basketball

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

Disputed draftification, whcih leaves AfD as the route for articles with insufficient referencing and failing WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Africa, and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no opposition to draftify, but my BEFORE doesn't show any promise this passes NCORP as I did't find any sources about the organization that satisfied all three of independent, reliable and SIGCOV. Though, happy to be proven wrong by a demonstration of WP:THREE, as always. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as it is mentioned in multiple sources. As an academy it has produced some upcoming notable players. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASD Casoli Calcio

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:SIGCOV, the sources I talking about the team does not seems to he WP:RS. Correct me if I'm wrong though Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Italy. C F A 💬 04:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The club doesn't have enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Yakov-kobi (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider WP:SALT given that this article has been unsourced for 16 years. This club has never played in any of Italy's leagues, not even the lowest Serie D. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the article the club has existed since 1923, so there are probably some sources that can be used. However determining if those sources can add to any basic form of a GNG pass seems hard to determine and considering there is nothing on the article. I have no qualms against deletion. As for SALTing I don't think that is necessary, that's stops someone in the future coming along to build a competent article. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete club has not achieved enough to have sufficient sources - but please disregard Clariniie's comment, salting would be utterly pointless and the club has played in the Serie D. Almost promoted to the Serie C in 2008–09, even. Geschichte (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I could find were statistics from tertiary sources. Tau Corvi (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dandenong West Football Club

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

Contested redirect (courtesy @Nyttend:) and N/C a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dandenong Football and Netball Club, but still no evidence of independent sourcing leading to notability for this team. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Star Mississippi 13:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I came along, I found that it had been redirected on notability grounds, while other clubs in its league still had articles. I have no opinion on notability, but I believe it absurd to have articles on some clubs in a league while redirecting others. If this concludes in deletion, others ought to be handled likewise. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a few non-AFL club articles which are pretty rundown and poorly maintained, I've just done some work fixing this one and there's plenty of independent news coverage about it Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete, either would be appropriate) The references added since the original nomination all fall under the banner of WP:LOCALCOVERAGE (since most are from the local council newspaper) or non-independent sources. There are two references to the club from the website of the Herald Sun, which ostensibly meets the threshold of being a major statewide newspaper – but a closer look would suggest that those are both the 'Local Footy' section of the newspaper's website, which tends to be an online mirror of affiliated council newspapers – plus they're quite WP:ROUTINE. On the balance of everything I don't think it quite meets a GNG hurdle. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Dem Back

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can only find trivial mentions of this website/group. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kokborok Sahitya Sabha

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

This does not seem to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Tripura. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can’t find any sources regarding the organization. It fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Please ping me if someone finds sources. GrabUp - Talk 15:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taharror

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. It does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lebanon. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiites Against War

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

No in depth cogerage in secondary reliable sources, probably too soon. According to the references, so far this is about a Facebook campaign and there's just not that much coverage, or reliable sources supporting this is an "emerging movement". MarioGom (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and Lebanon. MarioGom (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Concept

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sourcing relies entirely on interviews with people connected with the company, announcements, or mentions in passing due to their involvement in organising events, those sources do not contain any in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Organizations, and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- just wanted to contribute as the writer of the article. I wrote it after reading about the company's focus on work in the black diaspora, which aligned with a wiki project I've been involved with on and off. I did look closely at the sources for this article, because I know the ones I was using to establish notability (references 1-3) have interview content within them, but in looking at each article overall it seemed that there was significant content outside of the interview quotations, and that that content contained independent analysis- including looking at the wider industry context they are operating in, with statistics etc included in that. I also looked at the publications and writers to make sure they were both independent from the subject and engage in fact checking as part of their editorial process. I know 100% interview content does not establish notability, but I feel it is fairly uncommon for independent articles on companies or the people behind them not to structure their articles around a fair amount of interview content. The fact the company were also included in a way that was more than a passing mention in other major stories on Afrobeats, like the Rolling Stone one, suggested to me notability within the Afrobeats industry. Anyway, I just wanted to engage and outline why I used the sources I did. Thanks Thebookstamper (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to specific paragraphs in the sources that contain in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company* that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this is a bit messy, I'm doing it on the fly, so haven't gone through all the sources. Appreciate it might not be the most forensic exercise because of that... Thanks for your time.

In the Pulse article:

(Citing these as examples of content about the company, not directly generated by something the company has said, or paraphrasing. They may reference something said by the company, but as I see it are writing their own analysis around that. Or the company is then responding to a point made by the publication.)

Section: ‘The show which became a lesson’

Coupled with the rise of social media, that show contributes to how Ugeh now perceives social media as a marketing tool. These days, his team studies social media based on demographics. Some artists are stronger on Facebook than Twitter or TikTok while others are bigger on Instagram. Some artists are also big on the four. An artist’s audience determines social media marketing and engagement is a key metric for measurement. While Ugeh admits that social media has aided event companies, he admits that social media phenomena should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Section: ‘What’s the process of organising a show at Duke Concept’

Sometimes, unplanned artists also approach the team through their booking agents The team then uses a data-driven approach to see where the artists can sell and whether Duke Concept would be willing to tour those places. These days, the events happen in mid-range markets to big markets. It’s unlikely that Duke Concept would take an Afrobeat artist to a small and predominantly white market like Milwaukee, Wisconsin at this time [...]

It makes sense. The attitude of a city like Boston to touring and nightlife would be much different to that of smaller markets. The pulse of young attendees also matters as much as their priorities. It's more likely that a 21-year-old, who was bred in New York would be willing to spend $200 on a ticket than his equivalent in a smaller market. Ugeh offers it from a perspective of comparative analysis, not with factual totality. As much as urban culture influences pop culture, the rising state of Afrobeats suggests that the racial spread of America must be taken into consideration while planning an event for an Afrobeats artist.

Section: 'Pricing'

(In response to Ugeh referencing fair pricing set by Duke Concept):

But pricing also depends on the format of the venue. As much as Duke Concept might charge $250 for front row seats in a seated theatre, the people at the back might pay as low as $30. While ticketing is already booming, secondary ticketing has grown a life of its own. Market Watch reports that, “The global Secondary Tickets market size is projected to reach USD 2755.5 million by 2027, from USD 1502 million in 2020, at a CAGR of 9.1% between 2021-2027.” Ugeh believes that there is nothing anybody can do about it. He believes that the best way to fight it is to encourage people to purchase their tickets early enough, discourage hoarding of tickets and to always make tickets available at the venue.

WMV article:

(Including this para as an example of referencing another source- an interview given to a different publication, not their own):

The Nigerian moved to New York City with his family a decade ago and shortly after; launched the company. In the early days tried to do an Afro-Caribbean showcase with headliners Timaya and Mavado in 2014, he told Pulse it was a “flop”. He references that show as growing pains but one lesson he learned was that; Caribbean events are marketed differently from African events- mainly Afro-music require digital promotions while at the time reggae- dancehall events required linear advertising, along with street “posters”and guerrilla marketing.

Rolling Stone:

Now, there’s plenty more evidence that Afrobeats is connecting in the U.S. Last October, Burna Boy became the first African solo artist to headline the Hollywood Bowl; this year, he’s slated to play Madison Square Garden, the first headlining performance for a Nigerian musician at the storied New York venue. Duke Concept, the production company behind the shows, was founded by Osita Ugeh in 2013, two years after he moved to the United States from Nigeria. The business initially had to be scrappy, producing concerts at small nightclubs and DIY warehouses — some of the only venues available to Afropop artists at the time.

Today, things look much different. In 2018, Duke Concept secured a partnership with Live Nation, and last year spearheaded the U.S. tours of African acts such as Wizkid, Omah Lay, Olamide, Adekunle Gold, and Diamond Platnumz.

Billboard:

Osita “Duke” Ugeh, who, as CEO of promoter Duke Concept, has been booking U.S. tours for African acts like Burna for the last decade. (He secured Burna’s first sold-out U.S. show in April 2019 at Harlem’s Apollo Theater — where he again made history as the first Afrobeats artist to sell out the venue.) But as Ugeh knows well, Burna’s arrival at the Garden was far from preordained. Since founding Duke Concept in 2013, he has struggled to get artists like him into big rooms. Now, as Afrobeats continues to expand its reach, Ugeh says he and his 15-person team are starting to see that reflected in the kind of venues the genre’s artists can play: He has gone from booking two to three U.S. tours for Afrobeats artists a year to booking two to three a month, with Davido, Tiwa Savage, Rema and more scheduled for later this year.

When his “One Night in Space” show at the Garden was announced in December, Duke Concept launched a joint venture with Live Nation, expanding upon a relationship that began in 2018, when Burna himself approached the company about a tour deal. He insisted on bringing Ugeh along; subsequently, UTA’s Christian Bernhardt, Burna’s touring agent, introduced Ugeh to Live Nation’s director of touring, Andy Messersmith. Thebookstamper (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and edit. Thanks to Thebookstamper for the comprehensive response but I don't agree that the extracted paragraphs provide sufficient in-depth information about the company. The Pulse article extracts are either commenting on or repeating comments made by the company or providing stats about the secondary ticketing market. The WMV article talks about the founder (not the company) and does not have any in-depth information about the company. The Rolling Stone article has a (generic) sentence describing the company and also repeats an announcement about securing a partnership - neither sufficiently detailed. The Billboard article is again about the founder or the partnership, not the company and does not provide any "Independent Content" by way of analysis/commentary/etc, just repeats information already provided by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, please change this !vote into a comment, it is double dipping with your nome statement. Mach61 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have to agree with the nom that none of the sources that cover this subject in detail are sufficiently independent; w/r/t Thebookstamper’s argument that the articles which have interview content have non-interview content as well, I would note that just because a statement isn't in quotation marks doesn't mean it was a journalist's own independent writing; it may be a paraphrase of what the subject said during the interview, or information provided by the subject in a press kit or such. Mach61 09:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passed the guideline WP:GNG very clearly, as i have understood it. Faizi Dehlvi (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Faizi Dehlvi, the appropriate guidelines for companies includes WP:NCORP which sets out the requirements for sourcing. Can you point to 2 sources (including paragraph/page) where the content meets the requirements? Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes notability guidelines for Organization.Have a look into this article [8] Sanzeb (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sanzeb, I've already looked (and commented) on the Rolling Stone article and it makes exactly two mentions of the company, and nothing that you would call in-depth about the company and also relies entirely on information provided by Ugeh and the company, so not "Independent Content" either. Can you explain the content in that article you say passes WP:NCORP? Also, to pass NCORP, multiple sources are required. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also comment on how you popped up after over 2 years of not editing here (and before that, hardly any editing at all), just to !vote at this AfD? Not exactly an area for inexperienced editors to participate in. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. TarnishedPath^talk 01:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t especially agree with the recent keep contributions, but would say Keep for this one, looking at the main refs- pulse and wmv articles are more than only interviews, following discussion above. Or Draftify if not- maybe it’s borderline right now but could be more notable with time. Editing84 (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing84 it isn't just "interviews", we need in-depth "Independent Content" which isn't simply regurgitating company/exec provided info. Nothing in Pulse and WMV that isn't repeating company info that I can see - what bits are you referring to? I've no objections to Draftify either. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Future Party

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

Non-notable protest/vanity political party. Was formerly a redirect to its founder/leader, Dominic Cardy, a former New Brunswick New Democrat who was elected to the provincial legislature as a Conservative and later expelled from the Conservative caucus. In 2023 after the federal Conservative Party elected Pierre Poilievre its new leader, Cardy and a small number of disgruntled party members split off and formed their own party, at one time called "Centre Ice Conservatives", later "Centre Ice Canadians", and now ~~registered~~ eligible to register as the Canadian Future Party. This party got a blip of coverage when it was formed last September, including a hit piece used as a reference here which opines in its first paragraph, "this tiny group of disgruntled politicos has no political future in Canada". It has had not a single bit of coverage since, other than very brief passing mentions in routine coverage of federal politics. The article as it stands is a promotional coat rack leaning on the prestige of a few notable political figures who were associated with the party's predecessor groups before splitting from the CPC, but are not evidently currently involved with it at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Canada. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the party has just met Elections Canada eligibility requirements which means they have passed the notability threshold and as of July 22, 2024 are listed as an "eligible party" on the Elections Canada website [9]. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wellington Bay, WP:NORG is very clear that political parties are not awarded "inherent notability" simply for existing, and must meet WP:GNG (WP:ORGCRIT). Curbon7 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at List of political parties in Canada our practice has been that recognition by Elections Canada or a provincial equivalent establishes inherent notability. Wellington Bay (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no such thing as inherent notability. Cullen328 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, given that they have managed to pass Elections Canada's criteria, vanity project or not, they will be as notable as any other minor party soon if they aren't already. Wellington Bay (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When they actually get someone elected, which likely won't happen, then we can have an article about them; "pie in the sky" hopes aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ORGSIG: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools." Also per WP:ORGCRIT: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - this fails that test, and political parties are not exempt. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Quote; if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject

1. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/from-centre-ice-conservatives-to-canadian-future-a-new-federal-party-takes-shape-1.6570315

2. https://jacobin.com/2023/10/canada-new-future-party-centrism-dominic-cardy-politics

3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/new-federal-centrist-party-canada-1.6972891

4. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-taube-canadian-future-a-party-for-losers

5. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/09/20/news/upstart-federal-political-party-wants-provide-centrist-alternative

This is not including the coverage of 'Centre Ice Canadians' which the party emerged out of. Wilson (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - well, given that the party has announced it will be running candidates in the upcoming byelections and general election it is likely that it will be receiving more independent, verifiable coverage this year and next, so I ask that if the decision is to not keep the the article, that it be replaced with a redirect to Dominic Cardy so that future editors don't have to start from scratch once there are more sources. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same reasoning as yours. Black roses124 (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. FYI, a subject isn't judged to be notable by potential future coverage. What sources exist today?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are, as far as I can find 8-9 news articles that mention the party. The wiki page itself has 10 (2 internal, 8 news). Most minor parties have more sources but have also been around longer (except the Centrist Party which only has 4 sources). The Animal Protection Party of Canada has been around since 2005 but if you exclude links to Elections Canada results it has less sourcing than this wiki page. Looking at formerly active political parties gives a mixed bag with some parties having more references and some having fewer (including, oddly, the Progressive Conservative Party). Wilson (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was a burst of coverage in Fall 2023 when the party first came along [10], but nothing since... Non-notable party that no one has talked about in almost a year now. The next election in Canada likely isn't until this time next year, so if there's been no coverage, I'm not sure what else will pop up. I've not heard of them in the year since these were published. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cardy was apparently arrested in Toronto on August 2nd; I've only learned this by visiting their facebook page. You'd expect the leader of a political party getting arrested to make some sort of news, but nothing was reported. This is very much a non-notable party at this point... Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, it is debatably on the same level of notability for Canada, as small vanity parties like the Forward Party and others are for the United States, there are much less notable US and European Political parties that have been given articles as well. This wouldn't be a conversation if it was an American vanity party that came up, why should it be for a Canadian party of the same level? And given that the party is likely to make a notable impact in upcoming by-elections or the next general it is something that has been notable recently and will get even more attention as time goes on as well. Unova Yellow (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palawan National School

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

Marked as needing sources since 2021. Almost completely unsourced, and the one source provided is WP:PRIMARY to document the mission of the school. Summarizes the routine activities of the school. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Philippines. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - see dozens of Google News results. It’s also over 10,000 students. Bearian (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it has a million students, if the coverage is insufficient. Most of the sources seem to describe the routine activities of the school. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Google news gives routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Young Conservatives

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

Zero secondary sources. Completely fails WP:NORG. Little more than an advertisement and directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scottish Conservatives; as an AtD and a not implausible search term. Precedent for this, too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Young Labour plus other subnational jurisdictions (Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Canada, South Australia, Virginia, USA). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotland is not a subnational jurisdiction. The Scottish Conservatives function as a separate party. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Scotland not being a sovereign state means it is a subnational jurisdiction. AusLondonder (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Admittedly the usage of the word nation can be contradictory, especially as the UK is said to be composed of four nations, with Scotland being one of those. (Although in official use the term is country rather than nation). Nevertheless, as AusLondoner indicates, subnational here is being used within the context of nation being synonymous with sovereign state (as with the other examples from Canada, Australia and the US). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Insufficient notability for standalone article. Relevant text could be merged in Scottish Conservatives. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Plenty of sourcing available. Youth wings of major political parties are generally seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No type of organisation is inherently notable. Please provide sources to satisfy WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My search shows passing mentions, although I see no clear easy pass of WP:NONPROFIT or the WP:GNG. Even if those could be well satisfied, WP:NOPAGE has relevancy - community consensus when this type of party wing is discussed appears to show a preference for subnational youth wings being folded into the appropriate subnational party wings (or national party). Three editors have indicated that they do not feel there is sufficient material to justify a standalone page, I'm happy to change my !vote, but more than a WP:SOURCESEXIST response is required. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a clearer consensus that Scottish Conservatives is an appropriate redirect/merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC

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

Pretty much all in-depth coverage I could find on Collective PAC were either about its founders (Stefanie and Quentin James) or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC. An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. Most coverage I could find of this PAC is like that: an article about PACs more broadly that simply mentions Collective PAC in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom's assessment. I have been unable to find significant coverage of this PAC. Most of the coverage I could find are quotes from the PAC's founders or brief mentions of the PAC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baloch yakjehti committee

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

Questionable notability per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Note that this appears to be a rewrite of a declined draft about the same organization by the same author: Draft:Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC). The same issues regarding formal tone appropriate for an encyclopedia noted as problematic in the declined draft seem to afflict this version. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per NORG, though the article should be rewritten. Significant coverage in this Asian News International article, this Dawn article, this Times of India article, this The Wire article, etc. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how they left "Sure, here’s how you can add a zone category list to your infobox:" in while copying from ChatGPT. C F A 💬 23:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with Mahrang Baloch~~~~: or Baloch Long March. This organization itself may not satisfy SIGCOV~~ — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Baloch Long March was a past and single event, so it cannot represent the whole BYC. See my comment and the VoA and Al Jazeera sources as justification below. Balochpal (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: Fails WP:GNG as many sources listed are from unreliable news sites (some of which I've removed) and also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Would also support content worth merging to Baloch Long March Axedd (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It does meet GNG; the sources just aren't in the article.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CFA
https://www.dawn.com/news/1845830/baloch-yakjehti-committee-postpones-sit-in-after-agreement-with-govt	Listed on WP:NPPSG as reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://theprint.in/world/pakistan-baloch-yakjehti-committee-establishes-central-organising-body-mahrang-baloch-chosen-central-organiser/2131286/	Listed on WP:NPPSG as reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://m.thewire.in/article/south-asia/a-baloch-national-gathering-against-enforced-disappearances-and-human-rights-abuses/amp	Listed on WP:NPPSG as generally reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://www.geo.tv/latest/556473-baloch-yakjehti-committee-sit-in-enters-third-day	~ Listed on WP:NPPSG as "leaning towards reliable"	About the organization	~ Partial
https://www.newsx.com/world/baloch-yakjehti-committee-to-run-endbalochgenocide-campaign-against-pakistan-atrocities/	Not listed anywhere, but no reason to assume it's not reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/byc-urges-rights-body-to-intervene-amid-escalating-abuses-in-balochistan20240724190635	~ No consensus on reliability	About the organization	~ Partial
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/baloch-yakjehti-committee-criticises-pakistan-for-atrocities-against-people-of-balochistan/articleshow/111632036.cms	~ No consensus on reliability	About the organization	~ Partial
https://www.lokmattimes.com/international/baloch-yakjehti-committee-steps-up-efforts-for-national-gathering/	Not listed anywhere, but no reason to assume it's not reliable	About the organization	✔ Yes
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}}.

That is a source assessment based on significant coverage by major news outlets. Even if we discount the non-listed or no-consensus sources, there are still three reliable sources that offer significant coverage. They just need to be added to the article when it is rewritten. C F A 💬 23:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like ANI and Times of India are not reliable for the topic. WP:RSPANI Look here for further information. Any India related news site is unreliable when it comes to political topics about Pakistan as the govt has vested interest involved. Other sources do exist but they fail to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV as of now. Axedd (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which is why I marked them as "No consensus" on the chart above. There are still at least 3 reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage of the organization, which shows that it meets WP:NORG. We can't say something fails GNG just because other unreliable sources happen to have also covered the topic. C F A 💬 00:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per user:CFA. Plus, also check other sources like VoA, Al Jazeera, ABC News, etc as they also mention the BYC. Additionally, please fix the capitalization in the article title (with B, Y and C in capital letters).Balochpal (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC) — Balochpal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello user:CFA. Can you add the above recent sources, plus Amnesty International, Arab News and The Diplomat, to your table as well? They need to be added to the article also. Balochpal (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom as the article fails WP:GNG and is already covered in the Baloch Long March. Ainty Painty (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: as per the Voice of America, a reliable and authentic source, the Baloch Long March was a past event, not a present event, that happened months ago. (The Al Jazeera news doesn't event mention the long march when discussing the BYC). How would you use it to cover the broader topic of the whole BYC? VoA: Late last year, BYC led a 1,600-kilometer march to Islamabad with families awaiting the return of their loved ones gone missing in the fight between the state and Baloch separatists. Protesters faced severe police action as they tried to enter the capital. Demonstrators, braving the cold for days, eventually left after authorities warned of an imminent security threat. Balochpal (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage provided by CFA is sufficiently convincing to meet the GNG, so I propose that we keep this article. At the very least, it should be merged with Mahrang Baloch rather than being deleted entirely. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not agree with merging as the BYC is a significant political movement and the article on BYC has room for expansion using the existent reliable sources. Yes, Mahrang Baloch is one main leader, but the BYC also has other well-known leaders, like Sammi Deen Baloch, as well as many male leaders. Balochpal (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Balochpal, You don't need to respond to every comment. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a conflict of interest due to the name of the deletion subject and the word before pal in their name Felicia (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Felicia, I have no conflict of interest. My involvement is purely to ensure accurate representation of the BYC, based on verifiable sources (e.g., Dawn, Al Jazeera, Voice of America, The Diplomat, Amnesty International, etc). Balochpal (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Franchise Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted in 2013 after an AfD. Recreated in 2020. I don't see any reason to dispute the result of that AfD; there is still little in-depth coverage cited on this page. Outside of the Supreme Court case (which appears to have been sparsely covered), the only coverage is a few mentions from minor trade publications. I tried looking for more on Google, but all I could find were press releases. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In-depth coverage from independent and reliable sources is needed to meet WP:GNG. Its small role in a Supreme Court case does not make it notable.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. CptViraj (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's actually quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS for this organization, which has received news coverage for its activity on many issues, including local minimum wage mandates (NBC News, CBS News, Entrepreneur, Reuters), joint employer laws/regulation (NYTimes, Wall St. Journal, Entrepreneur, home health aide employment (NYT ed board), IFA's data partnership with the Census Bureau (NBER) -- plus academic articles in Enterprise and Society and Competitiveness Review, and items in the Business Journals and BisNow. Altogether, I see a pass of WP:NORG that didn't exist at the time of the last AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Hospital

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

Still not notable. The last AfD (when the article was named Abdali Medical Center) was 5 years ago and the decision was to keep the article although it is notable that there was a number of editors saying it met GNG but didn't/wouldn't consider whether the sourcing met NCORP criteria. Nothing has changed in the meantime for me. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references have content that meets these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Health and fitness, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previously at AFD twice (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)} so not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:John Canning Studios Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Organizations deletion

Waterloo Co‑operative Residence Inc.

International Youth Development Foundation

Reykjavík International School

YNAB

Personal Capital

Cadabam's Hospitals

Powerade-Team Pilipinas

Adelaide University Liberal Club

MD Bank

Not Dead Yet (nonprofit)

Gazetted officer (Kenya)

Manchukuo Government

Strangers Helping Strangers

Sri Sathya Sai Loka Seva Trust Educational Institutions

Wisconsin Underwater Archaeology Association

Educational Basketball

ASD Casoli Calcio

Dandenong West Football Club

Fight Dem Back

Kokborok Sahitya Sabha

Taharror

Shiites Against War

Duke Concept

Canadian Future Party

Palawan National School

Scottish Young Conservatives

Collective PAC

Baloch yakjehti committee

International Franchise Association

Abdali Hospital

Proposed deletions

Categories