From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Organizations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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

Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka)

Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization fails WP:NORG. GTrang ( talk) 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Fantasy Amateur Press Association

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

There is a major lack of sources for verification. Ktkvtsh ( talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Communion of Western Orthodox Churches

Communion of Western Orthodox Churches (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only independent source given, Thöle, only mentions the CWOC in passing. I can't find any source that actually covers their activities. There's no evidence that this communion is more than a loose agreement of three small like-minded denominations. Leefeni aures audiendi audiat 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

French Orthodox Church

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

Fails GNG. Claims 10 communities in their own official website. The French version was deleted by consensus. Leefeni aures audiendi audiat 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Institute for Legislative Analysis

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

No change since the last AfD, coverage does not meet WP:ORGCRITE--the article's creator should have challenged the close by requesting that it be relisted, but instead went straight to RFUD. The additional sources linked in the discussion which they claim demonstrate notability do not include in-depth independent coverage of the organization that would satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. signed, Rosguill talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

A review of the log over the last week shows I have made a number of attempts to address the concerns you raised. Additionally, I just added a piece on ILA's data (written 3 hours ago) by Fox News' Deroy Murdock on DailySignal (the platform of the largest conservative thinktank in the world). Politicalorganizationjunkie ( talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/24/democrats-not-republicans-are-capitol-hills-true-extremists/ Politicalorganizationjunkie ( talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Advitya

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Can be mentioned in /info/en/?search=List_of_disability_organizations Wikilover3509 ( talk) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Vegetable Market Workers Union

Vegetable Market Workers Union (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I looked for reliable sources and books but couldn't find anything. The article can be redirected. GrabUp - Talk 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Andhra Pradesh. GrabUp - Talk 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The editor who de-PROD'd this article suggested a redirect to All India Trade Union Congress. Is there a reason you came to AFD instead? Liz Read! Talk! 04:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Liz, I thought this should be discussed at Afd before redirecting it there. I have no reason other than that; I myself don’t want to redirect it. I also thought, if someone disagrees with me after the redirect, then what am I going to do? So, I don’t want to bear any burden. GrabUp - Talk 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't verify that this exists at all, or if it has continued to exist for the 19 years since the article was created (almost in its current form), or if is affiliated with the All India Trade Union Congress, or who "Moulana" is. Neither Google nor Bing can find anything. Without a source, this should be deleted without a redirect. Walsh90210 ( talk) 01:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Embassy of Sudan, London

Embassy of Sudan, London (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No useful secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are a government list of diplomatic missions and a source purportedly about a protest at the embassy more than a decade ago but which appears unrelated. Previously subject of contested PROD and contested merge/redirect. AusLondonder ( talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Assuming the protests aren't mentioned in the main article, there's now something to merge, but the protests were about relations, not buildings. Mangoe ( talk) 13:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Pedantically protests can be about buildings (e.g. [1]), but these ones were not. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
I have revised the comment, pedantically. Mangoe ( talk) 21:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've found the source for the protests and fixed the article, so that information is now verified. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Investigate Europe

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

None of the sources that mention the subject cover it in depth, so fails the WP:SIRS test, and so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Erasmus Student Network Armenia

Erasmus Student Network Armenia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local branch of Erasmus Student Network, no independent notability. Broc ( talk) 08:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Armenia. Shellwood ( talk) 09:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- Working on expanding the article. ESN Armenia is quite active and one of the more notable student organizations within the country. English publications may be limited as most of the content referencing the org is in Armenian. Will continue to expand with refs. Any help is appreciated :) Archives908 ( talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Replace Sinema Project

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines; PAC largely became irrelevant to releated election; could be merged into background for 2024 United States Senate election in Arizona RenewIR ( talk) 04:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

FK Kozara (Sweden)

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

FC Giffarna

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk) 20:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

BK Skottfint

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF and several others, I don't see this low-level Swedish football club meeting GNG. Modest history peaking on the 6th tier. Geschichte ( talk) 20:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

As Sunnah Foundation

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

This article is written based on highly promotional, press releases and self published sources. Most of the sites are unreliable, some of them are recirculation of press releases, contain bank account information for collecting donations, some contain external links to the site of the organisation. I think the purpose of creation of this article is to promote the organisation. Topic of This article can be well explained in the article of the owner. Although I am not sure whether the owner's article warrants his own article or not. - AlbeitPK ( talk) 16:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Pahle India Foundation

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

This appears to be a non-notable organization with no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search for "Pahle India Foundation" yields only a few passing mentions and routine coverage, but nothing that satisfies the criteria of WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS  💬 12:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Gasable

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

Little indication of notability. The Jordan Times reference reads more like an ad and comes from a source of questionable reliability, and the second source only mentions it in passing. I could find an article by the UN environment programme [2], but I don't think that comes anywhere close to establishing notability. OzzyOlly ( talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Jordan. OzzyOlly ( talk) 01:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 07:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: An article about an e-business app, unchanged since it was restored at request of the article creator after a previous AfD soft deletion. Since the previous AfD, the company appears to have moved its base and broadened its operation. An article here describes the company's change in personnel / location, but this still appears to be coverage promoting a niche startup; I am not seeing the depth of coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 07:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per AllyD. Raymond3023 ( talk) 06:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Nkawkaw Senior High School

Nkawkaw Senior High School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing much to be notable. While I agree with WP:NSCHOOLS, "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." I can't find any WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE for a simple article. WP:SIRS already was not enough except for the schools 50th anniversary. A redirect can be kept though at List of schools in Ghana#N. Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Marilyn G. Rabb Foundation

Marilyn G. Rabb Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing online that suggests the organisation still exists. The Guidestar website ( https://www.guidestar.org/profile/36-4416453#financials) has the following comment: "This organization has not appeared on the IRS Business Master File in a number of months. It may have merged with another organization or ceased operations. This organization's exempt status was automatically revoked by the IRS for failure to file a Form 990, 990-EZ, 990-N, or 990-PF for 3 consecutive years. Further investigation and due diligence are warranted" suggesting it may be defunct or merged. Very limited info on existing wiki page. Previous organisation website does not appear to exist. Need to find evidence to support notability or delete. Newhaven lad ( talk) 16:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. Shellwood ( talk) 16:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I looked up this organization in the Illinois Secretary of State's online database. Apparently it changed its name to "MGR Youth Empowerment" in 2013, and then dissolved in 2015. So the question is whether it was notable during its existence before it dissolved. For reference, their IRS returns through 2011 can be viewed on Candid.org at https://beta.candid.org/profile/7500383 if it makes a difference. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Bandhan Mutual Fund

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (12 May 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to once again initiate the deletion of the article, based on the same rationale presented during the initial deletion discussion. - "Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products ( exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND." TCBT1CSI ( talk) 07:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The Summit Open Source Development Group

The Summit Open Source Development Group (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage for this organization, and the only mentions I can find just note that they maintained the Abusive Hosts Blocking List. Either a redirect or delete would be a good outcome. Helpful Raccoon ( talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't mind getting rid of this article. Honestly it only really exists because of a situation a long time ago and really the org is in almost read-only state at this point since I'm retired from IT. Brielle ( talk) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Apni Party Pakistan

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

Fails GNG as well WP:NORG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:NORG. If it had won a seat in the national or provincial parliament there would be some presumption of notability at least. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Notability not established. The only reference is a list of all the political parties in Pakistan – 168 of them. They're not all notable, or worthy of mention. Many, if not most, will disappear without a candidate who wins anything, or having any noteworthy coverage. If its candidate wins a seat in the next election, or in a few years, it can have an article. Unless notability is established in some way, this one should be deleted. Ira Leviton ( talk) 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete, A single sentence and a single source simply stating that the party exists isn't enough for notability. The party hasn't won a single election yet (that I could find), nor could I find any reporting of the party, or even a profile on what the party believes. We just don't have enough for an article at this point. - Samoht27 ( talk) 18:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment, articles author made a request for undeletion before this deletion discussion was finished. This could be relevant. - Samoht27 ( talk) 18:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not at all at G4, but the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Project against Hate and Extremism of the citation of reports vs. WP:ORG level coverage remain true. Bringing it back here for discussion. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Alabama. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Courtesy ping to all participants in the prior AfD: @ MarioGom, Alsee, Cullen328, LordPeterII, DanielRigal, TheresNoTime, and Idoghor Melody: Star Mississippi 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: As of now ( permalink), sources 1 to 5 are not independent and do not count towards notability. The rest of the sources cite reports by the organization, and some (like the one from apublica.org) go quite into depth into the reports, but still there does not seem to be in-depth coverage about the organization itself. It does not seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but the content of sources 6 to 10 would be due in various other articles. MarioGom ( talk) 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep to be honest I only found out about the previously deleted article when creating a redirect at GPAHE. I think the deletion in 2022 was adequate, but the organization's publications have since generated numerous news pieces including from CNN Portugal and Diário de Notícias, besides the above mentioned apublica.org. While these sources don't exclusively cover GPAHE itself, they do mention the organization extensively (at least one paragraph in each of those, and several in DN), they're entirely based on GPAHE's reports and cite them throughout. IMHO this is enough to attest significant coverage while clearly being independent, reliable and secondary. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I also recommended in the 2022 AfD. There has been no significant change in the quality of the sourcing that I can see. According to WP:NORG, The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. I do not believe that the coverage of this organization rises to the level required by the relevant notability guideline, and I believe that Alsee analyzed the matter very thoroughly in 2022. Cullen328 ( talk) 22:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Cullen328: with all due respect, I think you're reading too much into that particular part of WP:NORG. Firstly, "well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" - at least the three pieces I mentioned above, and many many others, do go well beyond brief mentions. They're not news pieces about something that were written independently of the organiation and then cite it in passing somewhere in the middle of the article. They're entire pieces built around the organization's reports and that give substantial coverage to the organization itself. The fact that this coverage isn't about the history of the organization isn't all there is to it. The pieces are about the organization's work and that cannot be ignored. A Pública's piece mentions GPAHE eight times throughout the text, as does Diário de Notícias. Surely that does not qualify as "brief mentions". Lastly, I call your attention to WP:NONPROFIT: the group must act nationally or internationally and, more importantly, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." I find that having their work featured in full pieces from outlets in Portugal, Brazil, the US, the UK and other places should be enough to cover both of those points. Mind you that none of the three articles I mentioned were published during the previous discussion: they're from jun/23, jan/24 and apr/24. Rkieferbaum ( talk) 00:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Rkieferbaum, we disagree about how WP:NORG should be interpreted. That's OK. I stand by my recommendation, but if consensus develops to keep the article, so be it. Cullen328 ( talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't !vote last time but I think it is a weak keep this time. There are 70 hits in Google Scholar and several pages of Google News hits showing that academics and Reliable Sources take them seriously and are happy to use their research as a source but I don't see anybody covering the organisation itself as a primary subject, which is what it would take to move it from a weak keep to a full strength keep. If anybody can find something like that, even if it is not in English, then I think that would secure the keep. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Numerous references in reliable sources, including several from scientific publications available at Google Scholar. Direct and extensive coverage at some of the most well known Portuguese newspapers, like Público, DN, Sábado, etc. I don't have any doubts about its relevance. Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I feel resonance with User:DanielRigal as there seem to be yet further articles that quote the organization. If increasing numbers of prominent publications mention the organization, then perhaps there is a point at which the subject should be considered sufficiently notable, perhaps. Some additional articles mentioning them that are not used in the article:
CapnPhantasm ( talk) 04:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Redemption Paws

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

Dated information and allegations not helpful to take any view on adoption of dogs from the charity 1nicknamesb ( talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and Procedural Close, as no deletion argument has been presented. The article certainly needs to be rewritten to remove POV issues, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the references in the article already present the subject's notability. Silver seren C 01:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Deletion is requested based on dated news articles, no more relevant. 1nicknamesb ( talk) 16:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Being sourced to older articles is not a basis for deletion alone, but only [3] appears to be significant coverage of the organization itself so I don't think it passes WP:NORG. The sources seem to be news ( WP:NOTNEWS) about an injured dog and imported pets or routine coverage of a small local organization. Reywas92 Talk 17:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Here's significant coverage of the group covering years that I found in multiple different publications, Reywas92.
These sources cover the history of the group, how it formed, and its activities over the years, both good and bad. Silver seren C 20:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep per Silverseren's evidence, most of his sources are inaccessible but I am assuming good faith (ping me if it turns out these sources don't establish notability). Article is in a poor state but can be fixed and I've already removed nonsense like the Google Reviews from the article. Traumnovelle ( talk) 20:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
There's also likely external influence on the article (and possibly this AfD) due to some controversial claims in the article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Simone (2nd nomination) Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Uptown Scottsbluff

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

The 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

  • 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: [4], [5]. (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
  • Flagging comment from TPH located here. They are not able to participate here but I believe are able to opine and so flagging to be sure it's not missed by closer. Star Mississippi 00:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Enough sources to justify keeping the article. There are some individual sources here I would not have used myself, but that does not affect the weight of the other sources. Esw01407 ( talk) 12:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Raza Development Fund

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

Fails 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Federation

Kerala Gazetted Officers' Federation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Grampian Flyers B.C.

Grampian Flyers B.C. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any potential redirects?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Executive Committee of Gagauzia

Executive Committee of Gagauzia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft

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

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 [20]), 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:
  1. 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)
  2. The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
  3. 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as this does not appear to have been an actual organization, but rather a name contrived to be an example of an unusually long German word. However, if this name is mentioned in some other article here on the English Wikipedia such as German nouns#Compounds, it can be redirected to that article. Do not redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, the actual shipping company with which this supposed organization would have been affiliated if it had actually existed, because people who look up this word (if anybody does) are probably interested in it as a word. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's already also covered there, though. SportingFlyer T· C 03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a made-up word, existing purely as an exceptionally long curiosity, of dictionary value at best (if it even belongs there). It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Kusma if there is sourcing. The Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft has (unsourced) claims of other silly long words derived from its name. But: is there sourcing this ever was a word, other than the Guinness Book of World Records and user-generated content like H2G2? Walsh90210 ( talk) 19:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Without proven sourcing, deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps I should clarify. My question was on sourcing of The name of the company is well known in German-speaking countries as a starter to humorously construct even longer compound words. Even if this specific word was made-up for the Guinness Book of World Records (which seems plausible), I would support a redirect if there is other sourcing for that statement. It is hard to tell from an English-language Google search whether there is anything other than "people quoting Wikipedia" there. Walsh90210 ( talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    You have to search in German, as that's where it's a novelty. It might not qualify for WP:GNG in English, but if you set your compass for German there's coverage. SportingFlyer T· C 03:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    In German it is basically a children's game to construct long extensions of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. Most made-up extensions are more convincing than this one (no educated native German speaker would use "-elektrizitäten-" instead of the correct "-elektrizitäts-" in this context) so I guess that is why this particular choice of made-up extension is more notable in English (albeit not very notable) than in German. — Kusma ( talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly meets GNG if you read the German article. Other long compounds of the same origin, such as Donau­dampfschifffahrts­gesellschafts­kapitäns­anwärter­posten, can be redirected to this article. Jonashtand ( talk) 06:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Redirect, probably to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. The Guinness source used on the German Wikipedia is sufficient for verifiability, but not notability. I suggest that the content of this article can be summarised into a single short paragraph in the target article. Barnards.tar.gz ( talk) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep While I understand the nominator's concerns, this clearly meets the GNG, and sources like [22] from 2021 show that it is still relevant to tech education in Pakistan. The article doesn't seem very promotional to me, and adding some of the criticism from that source I linked would help. This isn't some initiative that was announced and then disappeared – as far as I can tell, it is still operating and has a large number of students (in the thousands). Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I have added three sentences of (largely) criticism from that source. I hope that addresses some of the PROMO concerns. Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation

Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 [23] [24]. GoldRomean ( talk) 22:24, 6 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

"subject does not seem to be notable...." Except to the worldwide community of those who collect, study, and research postal history and postage stamps. 2601:282:1C00:8A10:9146:9250:A151:B8D9 ( talk) 18:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Regretably that is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Notability has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia and that is the criteria that must be met. Popularity with philatelists is of interest, but does not contribute to notability unless this particular subject is discussed in multiple independent and reliable sources.   Velella   Velella Talk   21:57, 16 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! 22:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Canadian auction house Sparks calls Greene "the pre-eminent expert committee for the stamps of Canada and British North America." That's probably not a reliable source, but it ought to be a hint that there's something there. Indeed, there's coverage in philatelic periodicals. Appropriately for a Canada-centric topic, Canada Stamp News has spent a lot of time talking about Greene: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] and so forth. I suspect a great deal of discussion in Linn's and Gibbon Stamp Monthly, but both of them have paywalled archives (and the former's archive is a sad "archive", going back to ~2008 for a publication that debuted in 1928!). Digitization rates for reference material in this field are terrible; a lot of the significant coverage here is going to be in print. Lubal ( talk) 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Leinster Chess Leagues

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

The 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:

Armstrong Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heidenfeld Trophy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ennis Shield (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O'Hanlon Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BEA Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O'Sullivan Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Branagan Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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: [30] [31], 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 assessment table: prepared by User:MicrobiologyMarcus
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Garden squad win promotion". Irish Independent. 4 April 2012. Yes Yes No 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. Yes Yes ? 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. Yes Yes No 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. Yes Yes ? 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. Yes Yes No 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. Yes Yes ? strongest argument for SIGCOV of the tournament event 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. No interview with a member club member Yes ? 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. Yes Yes No 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. Yes Yes No 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • keep/merge my sense of the source analysis is we have enough coverage for the topic to have an article. I'm not sure which article title is best. We do have reason to believe there are offline sources too. For now I'd say keep Leinster Chess Leagues and merge the rest (a couple sentences at most for all but the Armstrong Cup) into it. I'm happy to take an expansive view of this article having coverage count that covers those various topics... Hobit ( talk) 11:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep main page, merge and redirect cups, stubify to verifiable facts: As the nom, I think I'm the only hold questioning notability. For consensus, I would concede notability for the main league given the breadth of coverage, in spite of my SIGCOV concerns above. I think altogether these pages should be merged to the main article, the cup pages redirected, and the articles signifcantly reduced to simply contain facts and not the long NOTDATABASE violations. microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 16:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Liverpool Privateers

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

Fails WP:GNG. 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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321  talk  contribs 14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Unfortunate accusations against the nominator aside, there's nothing approaching significant coverage applied, linked above, or found during my reasonable BEFORE which renders this subject sufficiently notable for its own article. I see no evidence this can be improved. BusterD ( talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    • @ BusterD: There was no intent to accuse anyone of anything. My only intent was to convey that I felt a BEFORE was not done. We simply disagree on the sources. I have nothing personal against @ Curb Safe Charmer:. Best wishes and happy editing. Flibirigit ( talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply
      • @ Flibirigit: And that language would have been more appropriate to a civil disagreement, like AfD. "I-messages" are helpful because they're not so threatening. We must be able to argue freely, even sometimes beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Sometimes screaming is quite necessary. Give yourself permission to step over the line occasionally, if in doing so you might push our entire Wikipedia movement forward. IMHO, that's the heart of WP:IAR. I am proud to participate in a process in which civil disagreement makes us a stronger (and more cohesive) community. Nice to meet you. BusterD ( talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Proposed deletions

Categories

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Organizations&oldid=1225546817"