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

The result was keep. This closure is affected by the lack of a thoughtful and carefully composed deleiton rationale. Offering one word reasons for deletion is really not doing your due diligence as a nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Social Service of the State of Rio de Janeiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

advertising The Banner talk 08:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and copy edit – The article does not have a promotional tone, and simply delineates the history of the organization, and what it does in contemporary times, all in a neutral manner. The article does not extoll the institution in a particularly promotional manner, does not attempt to recruit others to join the organization, and does not contain promotional buzzwords and peacock terms. Also not particularly impressed with the one-word rationale for deletion here, because it provides no qualification at all (e.g. WP:VAGUEWAVE). That all said, the article does read in a couple of areas a bit like a press release, which can be addressed by copy editing it, because the majority of the article does not read as similar to a press release. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The article does need work, but it is clearly WP:N and it’s not as the one word nomination asserts “advertising”. Jacona (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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