Points of interest related to Organizations on Wikipedia:
Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs.

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Organizations deletion[edit]

British Rabbit Council

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

There has been a tag about notability since 2018, I've read it through it and I'm leaning towards delete but not entirely sure. Searching for the organisation itself brings up little reliable sources - one of the first results is a forum asking what it is. When I searched via the news section all I got were articles in Britain about rabbits with them being cited. I'm unsure whether this establishes notability, it shows that in this context reliable sources consider it a reliable source/notable source to ask for comment, however these are basically trivial mentions, they aren't in depth. Sources that may establish notability are: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Finally if the BRC isn't notable enough for an article can it be considered notable enough to establish breed notability? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International SOS

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG, Also seeing previous deletion, the discussion closer is a confirmed sockpuppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_SOS Pridemanty (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Singapore, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)‎Reply[reply]

Barokk Hotel Promenád Győr[edit]

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

~~It doesn't seem to be notable as a hotel; a 17th-century building should be notable, but I couldn't find sources to confirm it. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Travel and tourism, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. The building appears to be heritage listed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdraw nomination Necrothesp is absolutely right. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[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.

Kartik Research

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

Fails to pass WP:ORG The sources are not more than an interview of a person and nothing to do with independent sources of the organisation. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Most sources in this article focuses more on the founder and does not focus the company itself in detail, and so WP:SIGCOV cannot be achieved. Google search results shows news relating to its "FW23" as well as a 2024 festival in Paris, but not that deep. While an entry on fhe founder can be created, I believe that the article will also be brought up to AfD for notability issues. Fails notability gutdelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NORG. Coverage talking about the company's founder. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Macbeejack ☎ 12:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Per Nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ultra Jhakaas

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

All the sources like [1] published by PTI News Network, or related to launch of the OTT platform. There is no independent coverage to meet WP:ORG Lordofhunter (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, Internet, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orange Jackets

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

I could continue pruning this highly promotional article on a non-notable organization, but really AfD is the way to go. The only coverage there is concerns passing mentions of people who joined the club. The big claim to fame was based on this article--but you'll have to scroll down a long way to get to the news item where they are mentioned. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and Texas. Shaws username . talk . 23:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Marches Local Enterprise Partnership

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

Zero secondary sources. Does not meet WP:NORG, lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources. Many sources are based on press release material and feature quotes from for example the Chairperson. Here's some better sources to consider. Research paper by the Industrial Strategies Council [2]. Article in The Business Magazine [3]. Some editorial content, but relies to an extent on Chairperson's comments [4]. Others [5], [6], profile but not totally independent [7], a little criticism [8], its launch [9]. It will be interesting to see whether the press features an independent appraisal of the LEP following its forthcoming closure.Rupples (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership

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

Zero secondary sources. Does not meet WP:NORG, lacking 'significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I've listed 5 sources on the article's Talk page out of 424 available Proquest sources. Under WP:NEXIST, Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep given the availability of sources now demonstrated. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South Australian Pipe Band Association

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

Article has had zero secondary sources since creation. Struggling to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Organizations, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep admittedly can be a struggle - one of the weirdest afd coincidences - the original editor is still editing (!), it is clear that the the facilities of trove were not available when this article was created. The claims for the organisation in all probability are verifiable from a careful check of material in trove... JarrahTree 13:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JarrahTree: Are you saying sources are available on Trove or potentially available? AusLondonder (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have had a closer look at the Victorian Pipe Band article - and unless User:Fifieldt turns up with some semblance of where either the South Australian or Victorian article claims can be verified from (or not) - I am not as familiar with SA (being a WA person), but it is not something that I would bank on. For some bizarre reason Trove seemed to be offline when I was trying to follow up, I do not promise anything. Apologies for that. JarrahTree 13:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The South Australian Pipe Band Association was wound up and replaced with Pipe Bands SA https://www.pipebandsaustralia.com.au/south-australia/ . Its member the Caledonian Society may be notable as the oldest pipe band in the southern hemisphere https://bagpipe.news/2019/11/25/brett-tidswell-piping-in-australia/ fifieldt (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

there are indeed some mentions in trove: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/275407559?searchTerm=%22South%20Australian%20Pipe%20Band%20Association%22 fifieldt (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Senet Inc.

(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. None of the references in the article or that I can find meet the criteria, just mainly a bunch of (regurgitated or not) company PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Page is made up of press releases and churnalism. A quick search found nothing meeting WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - This is a major company in the WPLAN space, providing networks for IoT devices. There are tons of articles about it. It was recently announced that they are being purchased. I have updated the article to reflect this and added 3 new citations. Maxcreator (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are all churnalism. Look at the dates and what they discuss. It is routine coverage of an acquisition that was sparked by a press release and then reprinted in blogs or industry publications. Doesn't come close to [{WP:ORGCRIT]]. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Egov.Press

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

Created as part of a cross-wiki spam campaign for which the creator and his socks have been blocked. The campaigns for which the site garnered attention were notable, but no case has been made that these happened because of Egov/Alash's petitions. Nor is there any other claim to notability. Sourcing is generally unreliable and not independent of the site. Accepted in good faith through AfC by an established editor who is on board with this AfD and therefore this could not be draftified but if folks think this can be improved by someone without a COI, I have no objection to draftification.

NB: Appears headed for deletion in de wiki de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/16._Februar_2024#Egov.Press whose notability standards are less strict, was speedied on IT Wiki Star Mississippi 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Websites, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Star Mississippi 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Without independent sources, there's no claim for NCORP or GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and this. ‍ Relativity 01:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, and the canvassing of users (that I personally experienced) both on- and off-wiki, even after being chastised about it, gives the impression that this is being done for publicity's sake rather than out of any encyclopedic virtue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Star Mississippi If the author of the article is directly to blame for disseminating the message and other illegal actions, then what does the article with sources have to do with it? Having studied the whole situation, it seems to me that you have a personal dislike for the author. 2A0D:B201:10E0:BD44:CCBC:9A01:BC92:77A9 (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC):Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the following facts need to be taken into account when making a decision. These Kazakh news portals completely or partially devoted an article to the petition site as a separate topic.

https://spik.kz/1775-peticii-na-sajte-alash-online-prakticheski-ni-na-chto-ne-vlijajut-tak-li-jeto.html

https://liter.kz/petitsii-v-kazakhstane-rabotaiut-no-ne-tak-kak-my-schitaem-1643696504/

https://aikyn.kz/181297/petitsiya-aytar-datym-bar

https://zhanaqorgan-tynysy.kz/pdf/19612-14-8518-19-apan-2022-zhyl.html

https://informburo.kz/kaz/elaynasy/qazaqstanda-onlain-peticiya-nege-natize-bermeidi

http://rmebrk.kz/assets/pdfjs2/web/viewer.html?file=/journals/7972/2619.pdf

https://massaget.kz/basty-zhaalytar-438/87994/

These resources criticized the petition site.

https://astanatv.kz/ru/news/66308/

https://www.inform.kz/ru/pora-sdelat-oficial-nuyu-ploschadku-dlya-peticiy-grazhdan-zhurnalist-yuriy-masanov_a3893841

https://baigenews.kz/kazakhstanskiy_zhurnalist_obvinil_sayt_petitsiy_v_nakrutke_126317/

https://adilsoz.kz/monthly-monitoring/narusheniya-svobody-slova-v-kazahstane-iyun-2023-goda.html

In addition, the site’s petitions are mentioned many times in various foreign news reports. Wikipedia's rules state, When assessing the significance of web content, consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable impact on culture, society, entertainment, sports, economics, history, literature, science, or education. I don’t care about the article, but having studied the situation, I think that the article should be revised and left. This is up to the administration. 2A0D:B201:10E0:BD44:F1B5:49DF:C11B:D812 (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC):Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it turned out, articles in Spanish, Kazakh, Uzbek and Kyrgyz Wikipedia. Removed from Russian, Italian and French Wikipedia. 217.76.76.165 (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have forgotten about an entry in German. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom, cross wiki spam, blatant promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but the anonymous person’s arguments need to be fully verified, even if he didn’t make any edits. 217.76.76.165 (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
— 217.76.76.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 12:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, still need to check all the arguments. They seem to be justified. 85.117.101.20 (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and also piped the link to dewiki deletion discussion. No sources found in English, if at least, and so fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding additional statements, the article in all other languages are exactly identical, using the same set of pictures and sources. The eswiki article has a maintenance tag that is the same as our ((COI)) tag. Otherwise it is apparent that this article should be deleted in the other 5 languages, but this is not possibles because wikis have different policies, especially on notability. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also adding that the article was deleted in an additional 5 wikis according to the history of the Wikidata item associated with the topic, (The wikis are frwiki, itwiki, ruwiki, simplewiki, and ukwiki.) in addition to that the page was deleted once here on enwiki according to there. I am sure that this article should be deleted as a clear example of "cross wiki spam" which was the reason behind the locking of all involved accounts. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment, also maybe worth noting that dewiki is also having a deletion discussion. Shaws username . talk . 19:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that insight (and for linking de wiki). I knew they disappeared from the sidebar but wasn't sure how to track that. I'm not certain it has previously been deleted here, just moved all over the map for capitalization/transliteration reasons. Star Mississippi 20:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Week keep. I don't see any cross-wiki spam. Many translations of the wiki article is not spam. The author wishes to translate his article into different languages to talk about the online petitions in Kazakhstan. The article has enough sources. The article is of low quality, that's right. I recently corrected one author's error, replaced a false nonsensical source with a relevant one, see diff and Talk:Egov.Press#A strange reference. But low quality and errors are a reason for improvement, not for removal. Its sources IMHO prove that this article has sufficient WP:N.

A source from my diff (in translation). Dana Burkhanova; Asylkhan Kushkimbayev (2022-05-08). "Improving Mechanisms of Interaction Between Civil Society and the State". Scientific Collection «InterConf» (in Kazakh) (107): 192–200. It seems,Dana Burkhanova and Asylkhan Kushkimbayev are serious authors. In this article Egov.Press is mentioned twice.

À propos. It has been explained in Commons that there is no reason to quickly remove the files tagged by Star Mississippi as Speedy, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Astana 202302.jpg etc. This is similar to unjustified cross-wiki harassment of the author.

— Yuri V. (t•c) 23:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I had missed the move to a deletion discussion so thanks for flagging @Yuri V.. I do object to your characterization of it as cross wiki harassment. They are locked for spam and socking, the latter of which they have continued and the former you seem to acknowledge: The author wishes to translate his article into different languages to talk about the online petitions in Kazakhstan. is promotion. I filed the SPI, but being caught promoting a site doesn't mean they're being harassed. Star Mississippi 00:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yamatai (Cornell University)

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

fairly run of the mill Cornell club. Doesn't seem to have gotten coverage to meet NORG. [Should note here that I attend Cornell, though I have no connection to Yamatai.] Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Organizations, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy Deleteno importence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronals (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cornell 100+ MPG Team

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

Briefly entered a competition and got a smattering of coverage for it [10], but imo was a bit of a flash-in-the pan and there isn't enough coverage here to establish encyclopedic notability. [Should note that I attend Cornell, but have no connection to this project team] Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Environment, Transportation, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete God that's ridiculous – sponsors and all the divisions? This is a prime example of why we tend not to have articles on individual student clubs. Reywas92^Talk 15:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this kind of feels feels like WP:NOTWEBHOST applies as well. SportingFlyer T·C 21:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (OPS)

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

This organization is not a registered political party. It does not have an official name. None of the references in this article or anywhere on the web uses the name in the title. Fails WP:GNG for an organization. - SUN EYE 1 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. - SUN EYE 1 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: This article was created by Yogi12Ba after their Draft:AIADMK(OPS) about the same subject was declined. - SUN EYE 1 13:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ecumenical Catholic Church of Christ

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

Small and largely irrelevant group which is unrecognised by any major Christiand denomination. Most of the sources are self-sources and those who are not don't justify an article on Wikipedia. I move for deletion Karma1998 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 14:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I motion to keep, because it is referenced in The Detroit News, the Archdiocese of Detroit, and Aleteia. These news articles provide the argument that this group is relevant, despite its size. At that rate, some U.S. settlement articles which have only less than 100 residents should be culled by that same measure; they won't, however, because despite their seeming irrelevance, they are properly sourced through the U.S. Census Bureau. Only 2 sources are self-sourced in this article. TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, per significant coverage in the following sources:

"Rebel priest strikes out on his own". The Modesto Bee. 2014-07-06. pp. G2. Retrieved 2024-02-22. (this was a syndicated article that appeared in many US papers)
"Church merger brings leaders to city". Niagara Falls Review. 2007-10-27. p. 17. Retrieved 2024-02-22.
Terek, Donna. "Unusual church in no-man's land welcomes everyone". The Detroit News. Retrieved 2024-02-22.
"I did not want to live a lie, says former Catholic priest who opted to marry". Nation. 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2024-02-22.

Jfire (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, Some notability is implied by it being a historical landmark: "Cathedral of St. Anthony". Historic Detroit. Retrieved 2023-06-29.--Panther999 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as a historical landmark and the coverage detailed in this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. The building may well be notable, but that doesn't mean the organisation that occupies it is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indira Road Krira Chakra

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

PROD removed without addressing issues. This club carries no major historical significance, as reflected by the sources, failing WP:GNG. From a status perspective, it has not played major matches (List A matches) and so fails WP:NCRIC. AA (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall under the same deletion rationale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports. Shaws username . talk . 11:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all. There is nothing to show that any of these clubs is anything more than a local cricket team, competing in the sub-List A Dhaka First Division Cricket League. Some of them may be promoted to the List A Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League in future, but until then there is nothing to indicate notability. I don't think merely competing in the Dhaka First Division Cricket League can confer notability on a team. Sammyrice (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect all to Dhaka First Division Cricket League where the teams can be listed. Pichpich (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect all to Dhaka First Division Cricket League per Pichpich, there's nowhere near enough on the teams in the tournament for separate articles yet, however all can be listed in the parent article with any information listed there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect all per Pichpich and Rugbyfan22. A much more constructive and useful solution. Sammyrice (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers

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

Completely minor and irrelevant parties that never won a seat, got more than 100 votes, or participated in more than 1 election. Yilku1 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yilku1 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The AfD is flawed, as there are several errors in the deletion rationale:

The claim made that the parties listed did not take part in more than one elections is wrong as two of the parties listed did contest more than one election (Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers and United People's Party).
The claim made that the parties listed never received more than 100 votes is wrong – all but two of them received over 100 votes in an election: The People's Political Movement received 1,346 votes (11% of the national total), the Saint Kitts Democratic Party 905 votes (9% of the national total), the United People's Party 605 votes and the United National Empowerment Party 263 votes.
The claim made that the parties listed as "minor and irrelevant" is wrong as the People's Political Movement was the second-most voted for party in the 1961 elections, while the Saint Kitts Democratic Party was the second-most voted for party in the 1957 elections.

I'm not opposed to the Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers, Progressive Liberal Party, United National Empowerment Party or United People's Party articles being deleted as they were very minor, but the People's Political Movement and Saint Kitts Democratic Party were clearly significant parties at the time of the elections in question. Number 5 7 08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Réseau Art Nouveau Network

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

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced DrowssapSMM 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, and Europe. DrowssapSMM 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Cultural Route of the Council of Europe. Notability is unclear and the article provides insufficient context on the network. Mostly it's a list of the cities included in the network. Importantly and not included in the article, the network is route 25 of the cultural route of the Council of Europe since 2014. gidonb (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Significant cultural network. Enough online sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No extensive sourcing, just 2 gnews hits. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multnomah County Republican Party

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

A county-level branch of a political party with no specific claim to notability seperate from the larger party organisation. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Existing secondary sources do not focus on the county branch, rather covering election results by Republicans in Multnomah County. AusLondonder (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Oregon. AusLondonder (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - The only coverage beyond a passing mention in the last 5 years is about recalling their leader and splitting into 2 factions,[11][12] which is hardly grounds for notability. It's unclear if the group even exists in any meaningful sense at this point. Jamedeus (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that notability is not temporary, even if the organization hardly exists nowadays. Has there been prior historical WP:SIGCOV of this affiliate? Curbon7 (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that I was able to find. Most mentions in secondary sources are along the lines of "<person name>, chair of the Multnomah County Republican Party" - but the person is being covered for other reasons and the party is not mentioned again. There are a few 2017 articles about hiring alt right groups for meeting security, and older stories about raffling an AR-15, but they tend to cover resulting outrage more than the party itself. Jamedeus (talk) 09:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - arguably, since Multnomah County, Oregon is the largest county by population in Oregon, this could be notable. I am not convinced it is, but it c could be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Bearian. There is a lot of coverage about this topic. We can use these sources to expand it: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. 23.156.104.104 (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Sure it has coverage, but is the regional entity of a larger political party notable? It's not even at the state level, it's a regional party. I don't think we have coverage down at this level to begin with. The Oregon Republican Party, maybe... Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep‎. given search for sources and improvement in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal Southampton Yacht Club[edit]

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

Has existed unsourced for nearly 20 years. Lacks any substantive content other than where the club was located. Searches have failed to unearth "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom MNewnham (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, United Kingdom, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Any yacht club with the "royal" prefix is likely to be notable. There aren't that many of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you might need to read WP:ATA. You don't inherit notability from having royal in your name nor does it exempt you from the sourcing test. If you can point me to sufficient sources to demonstrate notability per WP:ORG I would be happily corrected on my judgement regarding the lack of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I don't. Suggesting this is inherited is frankly ludicrous. They're granted the royal title for a reason. It's not just something they choose to call themselves. That wouldn't be permitted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You were the one who suggested notability is obtained by virtue of having royal in the name, rather than through significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, my point was that yacht clubs with the royal prefix have been granted that prefix by a monarch for a reason. They haven't just adopted it because they felt like it. The royal yacht clubs are a select group. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the reason then? Where are the significant independent sources attesting to this? Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Zero independent sources, fails WP:GNG. I hope the closing admin is smart enough to disregard the above !vote that's making things up out of thin air wih no such consensus or sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No, not making things up. Speaking from a position of basic knowledge. Always a useful thing to have before commenting, I find. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to become snide. Your argument that anything royal is inherently notable was quite obviously made up. AusLondonder (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe you should read the comment I was responding to before accusing me of being snide! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why should I care? There's a lot of things that have gotten royal charters, but there's simply so basis for automatic notability for them. Reywas92^Talk 17:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And usually they are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep 10 seconds of Google Books searching brings up a wealth of reliable independent sources, several of which provide significant coverage. Waggers TALK 09:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did search Google Books and I'm not seeing that. AusLondonder (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's quite a bit in Southampton in 50 Buildings. I'm not sure about other sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is about their former premises. Certainly not "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Waggers edits and articles about the early club history I found among the first 20 hits out of 1,945 matches from newspapers.com (available by signing it to Wikimedia Commons and then Wikipedia LIbrary), the article now has "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". While I probably won't have time to peruse all the remaining 1,925 hits on newspapers.com, I will look for a few more recent pieces to add to the article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to Waggers and Grand'mere Eugene's improvements. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal Dart Yacht Club

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

No refs on the page for many years. One would think that sources might exist for a club of this age, but I'm not seeing anything which could be added JMWt (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep There's a whole series of these Royal Thames Yacht Club,Royal Southampton Yacht Club etc that are barely more than stubs but all have 100+ years of history. There does seem to be secondary sources but for the Royal Dart, I had to go 25+ pages deep on Bing to find anything. MNewnham (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:OSE. If there are no sources to support the notability of any article then it should be nominated for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note I have nominated Royal Southampton for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Southampton Yacht Club. AusLondonder (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not appear to pass WP:NORG with independent significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Yacht clubs do not get a free pass from notability requirements set out at WP:ORGCRIT, namely having received "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Appears to have been unsourced for nearly 20 years, an indication perhaps of the lack of available sources. AusLondonder (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Any yacht club with the "royal" prefix is likely to be notable. There aren't that many of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately simply having royal in your name does not exempt you from the notability requirements. Surprised an editor of your experience would think so. AusLondonder (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: I see quite a bit of coverage in newspapers over the decades. "Luxury look for Royal Dart Yacht Club H.Q." (Herald Express, April 1974), "Yachtsmen aim to popularise the Dart" (Herald Express, Feb 1952), "Royal Dart Club innovations" (Western Morning News, May 1932), "Royal Dart Yacht Club sails to a plush new era" (Herald Express, Nov 1991), "Ocean races sprang from Royal Dart Yacht Club's coastal events" (Western Morning News, Jan 1950). Toughpigs (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources IDed by Toughpigs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solidarity Party Youth League

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG, no non-wiki mentions online, no mentions in newspaper archives even in relation to parent party. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revolutionary Socialists (Sweden, 1987)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG, no mention in indexed newspaper archive. No mentions online, only mention of predecessor is an article on marxistarkiv.se which doesn't even mention it by name. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shu Shine F.C.

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A defunct local football club. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. National, not local. The club was promoted to the Super League in 1992 and after that was among the founders of the Zimbabwe Premier Soccer League in 1993. We need topics like this from Zimbabwe. Sourcing will be limited to retrospects such as the ones already in the article, but they are bit thin, especially the Sunday Mail. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - per above. Top flight Zimbabwean team from pre internet era that has some online sources in the article and definotly has olffinr ones. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete – I understand the limitations that exist in finding good sources about African football, but the article itself doesn't add anything. A list of Zimbabwean football clubs, based on the source "Zimbabwe's football cemetery" for example, would be more appropriate. Svartner (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citizen Matters

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

local journalism protal, non-notable per WP:NNEWS, coverage is among peer group, or trivial mentions User4edits (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, India, and Karnataka. User4edits (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Armenian Church Youth Organization of America

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

It exists , but I couldn't find evidence of meeting WP:OG / WP:GNG. I considered a merge/redirect to Armenian Americans as the only real WP:ATD, but wasn't convinced this was appropriate in that article. Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: This looks like a barely notable youth organization. I'm seeing some reliable source, independent reporting on the body from a variety of local sources. There's also extended coverage from Armenian-American-interest news orgs like the The Armenian Mirror-Spectator. Not enough for me to firmly !vote keep, but I'll dig deeper if I have the time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and improve: Per above comment- there is hope for the article. Archives908 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Failing to see significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Simply asserting sources exist is not sufficient. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep found some coverage here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classical Association of Canada

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

Agree with the hatnote, I don't see the level of independent and secondary sources needed to show notability JMWt (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restor

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

Do not meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. B-Factor (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Switzerland. B-Factor (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Thomas Crowther (ecologist). The reliable sources cited don't mention Restor, and the best actual coverage is probably in connection with the Earthshot Prize nomination, but none of it is really WP:SIGCOV. Verifiable enough, and enough mentions, to have at the section in the founder's page. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uprising till Overthrow

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH Tehonk (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Politics, Internet, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment While with the foreign language sources, I can not state with certainty that the sources provide SIGCOV, I think their successful hacking of Iran's government is indeed notable. Maybe the article should be refocused on the cybersecurity angle instead of the ORG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liz It looks like a one-event type thing to me, not that significant, there's not much to add for an article, it's more like a news story. I searched it on fawiki to see if there's more, I mean if it's really that significant I thought they would have a page but it's only mentioned on a list-like page among many similar events/groups, most of which are not notable enough to merit a separate article. Only some of them have enough to warrant their own article. Maybe this can be merged to a similar page (I don't know if there is one that fits) or to that People's Mojahedin Organization page mentioned in the article as affiliate. Tehonk (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CS Auxerre Lugoj

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under either GNG or NSports. Of the two sources, one is a dead link and appears it was a list. The other is just a list where they are an entry. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tentative keep. Played in the second highest league of the country's largest sport. Would need to see some sources of course. Maybe the @creator or @one of @these users might know. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep – Per @Geschichte. Third level champion with participation in the second. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – the club played in Romanian second division. Florin (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – they played for a couple of seasons in the second league, and some of their players went on to play hundreds of games in the first league, and one of them played for the national team of Romania.mihai.zamfir30 09:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – the club had some notability in Romania.Rhinen 07:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Quran News Agency[edit]

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

Been sitting here with an unaddressed one source and notability tags for 5 years, probably time to let this slip unless serious improvements are made or sources found. Koopinator (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything other than a few primary sources (all on its own site). LizardJr8 (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

California Green Lodging Program

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

Article long marked for buzzwords and original research, that doesn't appear to have lasting influence: might be a good candidate for upmerging into the department that manages it -- but very little content worth recovering in that sense. Sadads (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and California. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zou Presbyterian Church Synod

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

No evidence found of any notability from independent sources. Fram (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, and Manipur. Fram (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak delete: I lean delete right now because all I can find on this denomination in independent sources are passing mentions about church buildings in articles about other things. There is an outside chance that more sourcing exists in an Indian language, but I wouldn't put money on it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ per Pbritti. I found a passing mention of the synod on a Welsh Presbyterian website's history of the church in India, but that's not quite a secondary source, or WP:SIGCOV. Wikishovel (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge/Redirect, after re-reading WP:ATD-M, User:Jahaza's argument makes sense. Wikishovel (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Presbyterian Church of India. There's not enough here to warrant a separate article. The info about this synod can be included in the main article for now and broken off again if sufficient sources are found. Other synods of the PCI may have enough info for separate articles (e.g. those founded in the 19th century) Jahaza (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Museumand

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

I have nominated the article 'Museumand' for deletion. The creator disagrees so I have not treated it as non-controversial or simple. There is a discussion at the article's Talk page. In my opinion, the article fails on WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliabilesources and WP:WhatWikipediaisnot. In summary, the article describes an ostensibly extant museum and group of which there is insufficient evidence of existence, notability, verifiability or reliability. I will take no further part in the discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Caribbean. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: as the article creator I have expanded and updated this article substantially since Eastmain expressed their concerns yesterday, and I believe that Museumand is a notable organisation as shown by their current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum and the one last year at Nottingham Castle, their podcast chosen as "best of the week" by The Guardian, and their other activities. Yes, their web site is currently displaying "Maintenance", but the fact that Google searches are still returning both the home page and many subpages suggests that the website and organisatiion have been alive and well in the very recent past: I have provided archived links to get past this, probably temporary, problem. Even if it was to turn out that the organisation is now defunct, that would not affect its notability: Wikipedia records history as well as the present.

The nominator, in talk page discussion, accused me of WP:OR because I found a catalogue entry for the book to verify it's existence: not my understanding of OR. They also appeared to suggest I was part of a PR operation for Museumand: my only connection with it is that I heard about it (almost certainly on BBC Radio 4, very likely on Woman's Hour) thought it sounded Notable, and created the article. I am not a paid editor and have no COI. PamD 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am the nominator and so will not take part in the keep/delete discussion. However, for clarity I should reply to the comments above. In my comments at the talk page I write; "I absolutely presume that the Wikipedia article was created in good faith". My reference to WP:WWIN is instead to the way PR is designed to enter discourse and is often repeated by others in good faith. If I felt that WP:COI applied, I would have said that. As it happens, I do think searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR. Finally, When I nominated this article for AfD I made it clear that I was not using one of the simpler procedures since the article originator disagreed. It does not seem quite right, to me, that the article originator should now vote on their own article. But there it is. I appreciate, of course, that the final decision will not simply be a matter of adding up the votes. I'll leave it at that. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR: the existence of the book was queried, I looked it up in Library Hub Discover, the union catalogue of most UK libraries, and found a record for it. WP:OR is defined as "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". Is it suggested that Leeds City Library's catalogue is unreliable? PamD 09:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not taking any position as to notability but @Emmentalist you're not quite correct on two elements. The author is welcome and encouraged to participate at AfD, and OR has nothing to do with researching/verifying the existence of a book via a library catalogue. As nominator, you don't !vote because your nomination is considered a vote for deletion in itself but you're otherwise welcome and encouraged to participate as well. Star Mississippi 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for this, @Star Mississippi Very helpful and educative point very much taken! I don't think such a book exists, by the way. As you imply, my main arguments relate not to whether a pseudo-book exists on one local authority library catalogue but to the separate issues of sufficient and verifiable coverage. Emmentalist (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Emmentalist Note this which says "The exhibition ... is accompanied by a book of the same title (available for sale at the Castle shop). You really don't think it exists? PamD 23:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, @PamDI take @Star Mississippi's point. Let me make this one appeal to commonsense and goodwill. There is no doubt in my mind that two people identifiable on some websites, who call themselves Museumand, have written some blogposts and contributed to several institutions' displays on the UK's Windrush generation. I have argued here and at the Talkpage that this is most creditable but not sufficient of itself for WP:Notability and does not satisfy other WP policies. There is nothing to stop you revisiting Museumand in future so see if things have changed. I am also concerned, as a subsidiary point, that the article seeks to further claims of founding a national museum when they do not seem true in any substantive sense (for example, a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building with a large variety visitable exhibits. A 'museum without walls' is a catchphrase, not a museum). I am not super-keen to get into a theological debate about what constitutes a book/pamphlet/pseudo-book, to be honest. I suspect that some combination of ISBN number, publisher, author, etc, might be in order. The main thing here is that a statement in a website that something is available somewhere (but where there is no other evidence of that something's availability in book form) is not of itself sufficiently notable evidence of existence. At root, my argument is simply based upon the policies laid out earlier. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: People from the museum wrote a few blog posts for the Bank of England, that's about all the coverage I could find. One podcast in FEAST magazine. Just not enough to meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note that the blog posts were to accompany an exhibition by Museumand held at the Bank of England Museum: see https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/museum/whats-on/pardner-hand. PamD 08:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Netherlands Royal Shooting Sport Association

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not a speaker of Dutch but I can't find anything which would appear to meet the notability standards on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Governing associations for the sport of shooting are usually quite old. According to the nl:wiki page its membership was recently over 40,000. Should be easy to source for a Dutch speaker. @Gidonb might have an in-road here? Geschichte (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem here, however, before considering notability, is that this is a dictionary definition, not a proper article. If it was an article, we should have looked for sources and notability. This is so short that it should be merged, redirected, or deleted regardless of notability. In this case deleted, as the organization is loosely affiliated with three coalitions of which none takes preference over the other. gidonb (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't the Netherlands have an encyclopedia where this would be covered? Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Referring you to my answer above this question. gidonb (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I refer to your saving of a Belgian 8th-tier football club, whose article initially looked doomed in the AFD discussion. I'll try to post another question then: "if I were to look for an encyclopedia of an unnamed sports governing body in the Netherlands, would there exist such an encyclopedia?" Geschichte (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the best of my recollection there are or were books in this general domain on Google Books. And yes, the turnaround at K.F.C. Moerbeke was something! Maybe Ruud can save this one. I need to see some substance before considering notability. Otherwise, I will support delete or an ATD. For me, to change my position, adding sources is insufficient. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Delete without any prejudice per gidonb right above. gidonb (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I added new info and references. This is the Dutch equivalent of USA Shooting. A national olympic sport coordination body is surely notable. One of the issues with the article was a title misnomer. The dutch name was not correctly translated. I fixed that, making use of an english text (see reference) with the correct english name.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty surprised to see that there are articles about Dutch governing bodies for bridge and water skiing, but not skating! Geschichte (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review content additions since this article's nomination. Also, please do not move articles in an open AFD discussion, it really complicates the discussion closure. If this article is Kept, you can move it as soon as this closes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per Ruud and myself, now that the article has been expanded. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian Connections for International Health[edit]

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

Google, as well as all the sources listed on this page only turn up primary sources, non-notable awards/mentions and press releases, same with Scholar. It is known that notability is not inherited, and just because notable organisations are connected to this one, it doesn't mean this organisation is notable. Hence due to a lack of reliable sources, this fails WP:NCORP and the general notability guideline. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and United States of America. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Christianity, Medicine, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nomination. I also tried Google Books, but can still only find passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or move to draft give it a time, it could be well sourced.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, and WP:SIGCOV. In my mind a copyright violation is an automatic delete, period, but we need to address additional issues. It reeks of spam and soapboxing. There are no secondary sources. Draftifying it won't resolve these issues. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Association for the Study of Dreams

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. I am unable to find significant independent coverage in RS; a total lack of results on Google Scholar is particularly concerning for an academic organization. On Google Books there's some results, but they all appear to be from people affiliated with the organization, e.g. [24]. Interestingly, one of the most prominent authors in the search results is one Clare Johnson ([25]), who is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article but whose Google Books author bio mentions leadership of this organization. Absent clearly reliable sources, and noting the classification of these books as "self-help" texts, I'm a bit concerned that we may be laundering a fringe organization, and/or that there may be more than one organization by this name, one more reputable than the other (but neither of them notable). Dreaming (journal) could be a potential WP:ATD target, but the prior concerns of reputation laundering give me pause. Both this article and Dreaming (journal) cite this website to claim that the peer-reviewed Heidelberg University publication IJoDR is published by IASD, but the actual website makes no claim to affiliation with IASD, and its Editorial Team masthead makes no mention of any figures listed at this article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Psychiatry, Psychology, and California. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: The IASD is legit (eg see governance and notable members), and is notable in the real world, but (as is obvious) there's a lack of reliable sources to establish notability at Wikipedia. Have listed it at the article rescue squadron. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The association is certainly not fringe, nor is their journal, Dreaming. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ("IASD") may be helpful. Google books search, too.

Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, the page does indeed not show sufficiently the academic and scholarly nature of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, so thank you for spotting this. It is indeed incredibly thin. First clear matter is that the IASD publishes with the American Psychological Association the academic journal Dreaming, this should be stated at the top instead of the section on the International Journal of Dream Research. Dreaming has a current impact factor of 1.8, which is a high impact factor for psychology, meaning that each article is cited by 1.8 articles in the 2 years after publication. The journal is also 95th out of 147 multidisciplinary journals, which is very creditable: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/drm/. Being published by APA is very prestigious, for example APA publish many of the world's top psychology journals, such as Journal of Experimental Psychology. (The International Journal of Dream Research is relevant as it publishes the abstracts of the IASD annual conference each year, but this journal is published by Heidelberg University and not IASD, so the journal Dreaming should be more prominent on the page.) The list of researchers in the Governance and notable members sections is also very sparse, given there has been a new president every year since 1983. Professor Ernest Hartmann of Tufts University was a past-president and very eminent author and psychiatrist, he is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hartmann, also a president was Stanley Krippner, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Krippner, and founding member Stephen LaBerge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge. Booklist of founding members and past-presidents is here: https://www.asdreams.org/booklist-presidents/. There is also a lack of publications mentioned on the wikipedia page, some of the presidents' publications could be added there. All credit to the editors for this having been spotted, the page gives a poor impression of the world's most important dream research association. I can make suggestions for improving it and for showing the notable nature of the association. (And to disclose, I was IASD President 2001-2. There are many professors in the list of presidents, such as Katja Valli, professor in Sweden and president 2013-15, and Michelle Carr, president 2021-23 and associate professor director of the world's leading nightmare sleep lab in University of Montreal, and David Kahn, of Harvard Medical School and president 2007-08.

Thank you, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What would be most convincing would be examples of news articles, peer-reviewed journal articles, or books by academic publishers, that describe the IASD, its impact, structure, history, etc. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, indeed, point taken. There are a large number of academics who are IASD members, in disciplines from film studies to anthropology to psychology to neuroscience. There are also many psychotherapists and psychoanalysts. I will ask them for such citations, as well as providing some myself. For example, Blagrove, M. & Lockheart, J. (2023) The Science and Art of Dreaming, Routledge, page xiii, 'This research was encouraged by discussions with the eclectic mixture of disciplines and people at the conferences of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, which also publishes the academic journal Dreaming.'

Thank you.

DreamerMTB

86.129.93.134 (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Please see the Golden Rule. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait and see?: Could we now reconsider this AfD and instead template the article for reference improvement? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, Here are three science publications of studies that acknowledge funding by IASD. I will send more after these three. 1. Article in the journal Sleep, which is the highest ranked sleep science journal: Carr M, Nielsen T. Morning REM sleep naps facilitate broad access to emotional semantic networks. SLEEP 2015;38(3):433–443. https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/38/3/433/2416949 acknowledgement is in pdf version and here

2. Carr, M., Blanchette-Carrière, C., Solomonova, E., Paquette, T., & Nielsen, T. (2016). Intensified daydreams and nap dreams in frequent nightmare sufferers. Dreaming, 26(2), 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000024 article acknowledges IASD but is behind paywall. Copy on Researchgate is here: http://www.dreamscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Carr-et-al-2016-Intensified-Daydreams-and-Dreams-in-Nightmare-Sufferers.pdf

3. Carr, M., Blanchette-Carrière, C., Marquis, L-P., Ting, C.T., & Nielsen, T. (2016). Nightmare sufferers show atypical emotional semantic associations and prolonged REM sleep-dependent emotional priming. Sleep Medicine, 20, 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2015.11.013. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S138994571502064X?via%3Dihub

Thank you, DreamerMTB 2A00:23C7:7AA9:7700:8937:49DF:3401:DF5F (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, Here are three further science publications of studies that acknowledge funding by IASD. 4. Schädlich, M., Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2017) Improvement of darts performance following lucid dream practice depends on the number of distractions while rehearsing within the dream – a sleep laboratory pilot study. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35, 2365-2372. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2016.1267387 5. Sparrow, G., Hurd, R., Carlson, R., Molina, A. (2018). Exploring the effects of galantamine paired with meditation and dream reliving on recalled dreams: Toward an integrated protocol for lucid dream induction and nightmare resolution. Consciousness and Cognition, 63, 74-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.05.012. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810017306244?via%3Dihub 6. Eranimos, B., & Funkhouser, A. (2023). An exploratory study of the Eastern understanding of déjà rêvé (already dreamed) experiences in Kerala-Indian culture. Dreaming, 33, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/drm0000230 http://www.dreamscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Eranimos-Funkhouser.pdf Thank you, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, [I suggest here further text that acknowledges the importance of IASD for the science of dreaming.] As a result of an event at the 2008 conference of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, Mark Blagrove changed his research from quantitative and statistical investigations of groups of dreams to the investigation of insights that occur when single dreams are considered by the dreamer (Blagrove & Lockheart, 2023, pp.119-120). The single dream that elicited this change in research focus is reported in The Psychologist, professional magazine of the British Psychological Society (Blagrove, 2009). This change in research focus led to studies by Blagrove with other IASD members on the insight and empathy effects of group discussions of single dreams (Blagrove et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2013, 2015). Blagrove, M. (2009). Dreaming—Motivated or meaningless? The Psychologist, 22(8), 680–683. https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/dreaming-motivated-or-meaningless Blagrove, M. & Lockheart, J. (2023). The Science and Art of Dreaming. New York & Abingdon, Oxon.: Routledge. Blagrove, M., Hale, S., Lockheart, J., Carr, M., Jones, A., & Valli, K. (2019). Testing the empathy theory of dreaming: The relationships between dream sharing and trait and state empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1351. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01351. Edwards, C.L., Malinowski, J.E., McGee, S.L., Bennett, P.D., Ruby, P.M., & Blagrove, M.T. (2015). Comparing personal insight gains due to consideration of a recent dream and consideration of a recent event using the Ullman and Schredl dream group methods. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00831. Edwards CL, Ruby PM, Malinowski JE, Bennett PD, Blagrove MT. (2013). Dreaming and insight. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 979. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00979.

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of the above appear to actually contain independent coverage of the IASD. It also seems somewhat tendentious to suggest that the linked Blagrove paper conveys anything regarding the relevance of the IASD, as the extent of its coverage is as follows: At the risk of self-indulgence, I relate the following dream, from the morning of 12 July 2008, the last day of the 25th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Dreams, in Montreal. It illustrates the use of free-association, and the sudden realisations that can occur during this process. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Significant independent coverage of this organization is lacking, including the above that was added to this discussion. Fails WP:ORGCRITE and GNG. As stated above, books are written by affiliated authors. Notability is not inherited from persons affiliated with an organization nor from publications or academic journals produced by the organization - please see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. Hence, none of the above posted material indicates notability for this organization. Also, no organization has notability simply because it exists and has received kudos through the grapevine - please see WP:ORGSIG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I believe that references 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 (Kramer, Gervasi, Love, Bogzaran, Stuever, Henig, and Auchincloss) now meet the Golden Rule. The original name Association for the Study of Dreams (ASD) yielded three lengthy pieces from The Washington Post. Still looking. @Steve Quinn:

Please consider your own "top three" from these references before !voting to delete.

For your convenience, here are the three verified Washington Post citations:

Gervasi, Susan (5 January 1994). "Travelling in A Dream World". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
Henig, Robin Marantz (8 June 1987). "Interpeting Dreams". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.
Stuever, Hank (6 July 2000). "The Dream Catchers". The Washington Post. Washington. Retrieved 16 February 2024.

Will wade through this in-text Internet Archive search suggested by GreenC at the article rescue squadron page this evening: search results (for "Association for the Study of Dreams" in the text). I expect that most of the 1,159 results will be trivial mentions or links to the association's viral ethics code.

Bogzaran, Fariba (1 June 2012). Integral Dreaming : A Holistic Approach to Dreams. SUNY Press. pp. 161–162. ISBN 978-1438442372. looks good, too.

Thanks. That's my best shot, @Rosguill: Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, 1. I have entered the journal title Dreaming into Scopus, the major journal database, https://www.scopus.com/sources.uri, this gives a current citation score of 2.8 (i.e., on average each article is cited 2.8 times in the two years after publication in the journal), and the journal is ranked 102nd out of 209 general psychology journals. Coupled with the journal's publisher being the American Psychological Association, this is external evidence for the scientific and research quality of the journal and the Association that owns and publishes the journal. The journal's office is at Harvard Medical School. 2. I have followed the advice on magazine blogs here: 'Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.' In this Psychology Today blog IASD is described as 'the professional society for dream scholars/scientists' by Patrick McNamara, who has never held office in IASD. He has spent most of his career at the Boston VA and Boston University School of Medicine in the Neurology departments. He currently is Professor of Psychology at Northcentral University. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/dream-catcher/201706/some-resources-people-interested-in-sleep-and-dreams 3 The list of experiment grants jointly awarded by IASD and the Dream Science Foundation to sleep labs and psychology departments worldwide in 2023 and since the first awards in 2006 is here: http://www.dreamscience.org/grant-awards-published-studies/. Many of these awards have resulted in peer reviewed journal papers, I listed six of these above. Regards, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, I think the opponents of this deletion have proven their case for GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, I suggest the following addition to the IASD page. Lucid dream researcher Stephen LaBerge, PhD, was one of the founders of IASD in 1983. He is listed as a founder on the IASD website in this alphabetical list of IASD Presidents and Founders, https://www.asdreams.org/booklist-presidents/, and in this announcement of his keynote address at the very prestigious neuroscience Donders Institute, in the Netherlands, his bio lists him as a co-founder of IASD https://dreslerlab.org/laberge/ . His page in Wikipedia is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_LaBerge. Regards, DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, DreamerMTB. Since that doesn't add to the notability of the subject (the IASD), if you don't mind, I'll copy that request across to the IASD's talk page, and I'll see what I can do to incorporate it into the article. Sorry, I'm engrossed in the last quarter of a book at the moment. Thanks again, and regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blogpost by Professor Patrick McNamara in Psychology Today on the International Association for the Study of Dreams. Professor McNamara has spent most of his career at the Boston VA and Boston University School of Medicine in the Neurology departments, and has been the recipient of grant awards from the National Institutes of Health to study sleep and dreams. He is currently Professor of Psychology at Northcentral University and has not held office in IASD. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/dream-catcher/201202/the-international-association-the-study-dreams

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, yes that's another and we have that covered. I'm hoping that someone will be able to assess the citations listed above under "Update", to establish whether or not the article now passes WP:GNG. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three quotations downloaded from archive.org 21st February 2024, https://archive.org/search?query=%22Association+for+the+Study+of+Dreams%22+&sin=TXT Bulkeley, K. (2017). An introduction to the psychology of dreaming. ABC-CLIO Page 115 The early years of the 21st century have brought many new opportunities for spreading information about the psychology of dreaming to a broad public audience. The primary driver of these opportunities has been the emergence of the worldwide web, which has radically transformed the way we communicate, teach, work, play, and interact. Virtually every researcher, sleep laboratory, and dream-related organization has a website providing access to a wealth of materials, enabling people from any place with an internet connection to learn about current findings in dream psychology. For example, the International Association for the Study of Dreams (IASD) sponsors online conferences, organizes collaborative research projects, and offers many ways for people to connect digitally with academics, clinicians, artists, etc. all over the world (www.asdreams.org). Many other groups in dream research and education link to each other through the IASD, creating an extensive network of therapists and practitioners from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Hunt, H. T. (1989). The multiplicity of dreams: Memory, imagination, and consciousness. Yale University Press. Page 4 Meanwhile, on an organizational level, the Sleep Research Society (srs) and its small cluster of researchers focusing on physiological, neurocognitive, and content analysis approaches to dreams have been supplemented by a more eclectic organization, the Association for the Study of Dreams (asp). Within ASD, a diverse group of Freudian, Jungian, existential, and other psychologists interested primarily in dream interpretation and “dreamwork” has banded together with others attempting to relate dreams to altered states of consciousness and transpersonal psychology, and a small number of srs experimenters.

Miller, J. (2017). Dream patterns: revealing the hidden patterns of our waking lives. Scotland : Findhorn Press. Page 154 The IASD is a scholarly association for the study of dreams, including dream interpretation, dreams in culture, creativity and dreams, the physiology of dreaming, and lucid dreaming. They publish two magazines and a newsletter, hold conferences (both traditional and online), and provide classes on dream work. Their website has many useful resources, including bibliographies, videos, podcasts, recordings from past conferences, and even images from dream art exhibitions.

DreamerMTB 86.129.93.134 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll copy these across to the article's talk page, and have a look at them later. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have declined the first reference (author not independent, and not really that significant coverage). Have added the second and third references (with quotations: we can worry about wording and copyediting after this AfD). See article talk page section, and thanks again. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, try these archives of the pay-walled sources above: [26][27][28] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for archiving these. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, Major art exhibition book published by Cornell University Press stating exhibition and book were endorsed by several scholarly societies, including the Association for the Study of Dreams.

Dreams 1900-2000: science, art and the unconscious Mind. Edited by Lynn Gamwell. Cornell University Press, 1999. Book of exhibition held in New York, Vienna and Paris (1999-2001).

Page n5 “The exhibition and book are sponsored by the Lucy Daniels Foundation, and have the endorsement of the American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychiatric Association, Division 39 for Psychoanalysis of the American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, Association for the Study of Dreams, International Psychoanalytical Association, and the World Psychiatric Association.”

Retrieved 25th February 2024 from https://archive.org/details/dreams19002000sc00unse/page/n5/mode/2up?q=%22Association+for+the+Study+of+Dreams%22

DreamerMTB 81.154.219.215 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editors, The International Association for the Study of Dreams (1997) IASD Dreamwork Ethics Statement is cited as used in a 2014 paper on dream-sharing in the Journal of Tropical Psychology, published by Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-tropical-psychology/article/abs/dream-sharing-as-a-healing-method-tropical-roots-and-contemporary-community-potential/AB4122B8F8646BB8E184675C777F14A0 [apologies I can't access the full paper, link here goes to abstract and full reference list, latter includes IASD as author.] DreamerMTB 81.154.219.215 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I'll look into these. Have copied these suggestions across to the article talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. Additional sources I found like Reuters are not reliable enough to change the situation. BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any issues with the article. 18Carlox32 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The Arabic sources cited in the article look pretty good to me. The best English language sources I could find seem to be an FAS fact sheet, Global Security fact sheet, and a Carnegie Middle East Center report on Egypt's military industrial complex which has paragraphs about this factory on pages 55 and 212. There are also plenty of mentions in routine and not fully independent coverage which don't help much for notability but can be used to source facts in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
those English sources are not good - as I mentioned, passing mentions. BoraVoro (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I concur with the above Keep vote. The Arabic sources when used with Google Translate display articles that have a lot of info about the subject.Maxcreator (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

California Congress of Republicans

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

I don't see any reason to think this organization is notable. It doesn't seem like their initial split from the party was very widely-covered, and they certainly haven't gotten much news coverage in the last decade. It seems like they're basically just a minor Republican club, and those don't automatically get Wikipedia pages. Also, appropos of nothing, this article is written like a press release. I'd support either a delete or a redirect to California Republican Party. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Please see Republican Party (United States) organizations and Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States by political party - I don't think these are split from the overall national party, or even state party, as much as they are local groups of the same party. They cater to the local area Republicans, much like fan clubs. The ultimate goal would be to boost the overall state and national parties, but focusing on local politics — Maile (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. I misread the article and thought they split from the CAGOP when in reality they split from the California Republican Assembly. That actually strengthens the case to delete this page, as the California Republican Assembly doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I certainly don't see any indication that the California Congress of Republicans is as notable as other groups on that page like Log Cabin Republicans or the Freedom Caucus. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - is this related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Republican Assembly? — Maile (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to my knowledge. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Housing Conference

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - the generic name makes searching difficult. Google Scholar and Google Books do show fairly regular references to the NHC in academic work, and occasionally studies they have sponsored or hosted are cited. There is not a ton of in-depth coverage of the organization, but there is some, especially with regards to their 1931 founding, work in the 30s, and their founder, Mary Simkhovitch (example and especially example 2). —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- There are plenty of sources under the former name of National Public Housing Conference. Here's a findsources for that so you can see what I mean:

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

Central and Adams (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Network Advertising Initiative[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has some coverage and is borderline, but doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Deleted at 2008 AfD as non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of independent coverage; the current citations are misleading. A glance at the article's talkpage would explain that. There are nearly three dozen mentions from 1999 to present in the New York Times alone [29]. Here's a critique of the organization already used as a citation in the wiki article: [30]. Just because the article needs help doesn't mean it should be deleted. It was only deleted in 2008 because it was unreferenced. This organization is mentioned in a sizeable number of other wiki articles, including several court cases. In the age of targeted online advertising, the need for this wiki article seems more and more important. Persingo (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The organization is definitely notable: it is an important part of the history of advertising industry self-regulation in the US, and the debates and criticisms around that. NAI is widely covered and referred to in mainstream press and academic literature, not just trade press and writing from privacy organizations. The article itself doesn't use as many of those secondary sources as it should; I can take some of the blame for that as I wrote much of this article's text in 2010 as a relatively new editor who had an academic's tendency to rely on primary sources. But the article should be made more current and cite those secondary sources, not be deleted. Npdoty (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could those editors advocating Keep bring some more sources into the discussion or add them to the article to address the nominator's concerns?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it typically required that editors have to go through the longer steps of making significant edits to an article just to avoid deletion of the entire article through this process? After a very brief search, I would likely add these two New York Times articles on the origination of NAI, and perhaps this 2011 New York Times blog post that reported just on a change of leadership of the organization, to the History subsection of the article.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/internet-companies-set-policies-to-help-protect-consumer-privacy.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/04/technology/online-privacy-remains-a-consumer-question-after-doubleclick.html

https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/online-advertising-group-hires-new-chief/

Npdoty (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep There appears to be sufficient sources available here and more online that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The available sources seem to establish enough notability. popodameron ⁠talk 18:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep'Sufficient sources have been provided and available in Google search. Maxcreator (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inverness Field Club

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

A worthy group, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Civic societies such as this have been significant in researching and preserving the past (e.g. this), in developing local civic facilities (which may include the library provision in this case, though that is uncited), and in small-scale financial support for education, but unfortunately it can be difficult to locate sources to demonstrate their notability here. I do feel that the outcome can be to discard information on the clubs and societies which make social life meaningful. (Elsewhere, I have sought to use Wikidata/SPARQL to portray such civic initiatives in Scottish history, from which perspective it would be convenient if this article / item were to survive, but I recognise that is not a sustainable argument for notability here.) A least-bad option which I am considering may be a partial merge into the article on Inverness itself. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Google Books and Scholar links in the nomination find plenty of sources saying that something was published by or presented in a lecture to this club. Of the few that have content actually about it this looks the most promising, but I don't have access to the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potters For Peace

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

Fails WP:ORG. Source 3, 10 and 13 are dead. In any case, sources 10 to 15 are about Ceramic Water Purifiers and not this organization, so it's a content fork. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Colorado. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I don't have time to fix the article myself right now, but a Google Scholar search shows up lots of articles about the group. Some discuss the group itself while many are about the technical quality of their water filters.

Rarick, Charles A. and Duchatelet, Martine, Potters for Peace: Building Social Entrepreneurs One Piece at a Time (2006). Journal of the International Academy of Case Studies, 4(1)2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2491964
Carpenter, B. S. (2010). Embodied Social Justice: Water Filter Workshops as Public Pedagogy. In Handbook of Public Pedagogy: Education and Learning beyond Schooling (pp. 337-340). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863688-52
Kowalski, K. (2008). Removal of virus-sized particles and escherichia coli by the potters for peace ceramic water filter (Order No. 1460862). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (288219160). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/removal-virus-sized-particles-escherichia-coli/docview/288219160/se-2

Lijil (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Sources don't have to be available online to be valid. In this case, the references that appear to be dead may be available through The Wikipedia Library or a university library. I think that the references establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result was delete‎. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nassau County Sports Commission[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no sources liked in this article. Google turns up nothing relavant. Google Books only turns up trivial mentions. Scholar only turns up more trivial mentions as well as brief or passing mentions [...] of non-notable awards. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Sports. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 18:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - there's nothing in JSTOR. Newspapers.com has many hits, but I only found local stories with casual mentions of the topic, or quotes from the topic. Fails GNG as far as I can discern. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Seconded on all. ItsMoosher (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, PROD"d twice so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed WP:ATD: Redirect to Gary I. Wadler. --Habst (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether this page should become a Redirect or be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Don't see a redirect that makes sense here either, the one proposed here seems to me like it would be a WP:SURPRISE. Let'srun (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Let'srun, thank you for your vote. Why would it be a surprise? The redirect target was the president of the organization. Of course, there is always a possible redirect to Nassau County, New York as well. --Habst (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  That is what I was thinking, yes. Let'srun (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somali Patriotic Movement

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

Duplicate page of Somali National Movement just incomprehensible. Same names of orgs in Somali. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Africa. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I also have serious WP:COMPETENCY concerns about the editor working on this, evident by them adding their article to the deletion discussion page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I have reverted Grozny77 (talk · contribs)'s attempt to duplicate the article in the nomination page. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. The Somali Patriotic Movement was a distinct southern grouping that was part of the coalition that overthrew the Barre regime in 1991. There's ample sourcing available.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Ahmed Ali, Fatuma (2022). "The Somali National Movement Engineering self-determination of Somaliland". In Bach, Jean-Nicolas (ed.). Routledge handbook of the Horn of Africa. London New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 89–97. ISBN 9780429426957. However, it is believed that these suppressive efforts by Barre's regime did not stop the SNM from waging its armed resistance in northern Somalia, but it is also made it see the opportunity to support other clan-based rebel groups to take up arms against the regime. These included the United Somali Congress (USC) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM) supported respectively by the Hawiye and the Ogaden clans. (p.93)
^ Hunter, Brian (1993). "Somalia". In Hunter, Brian (ed.). The Statesman’s Year-Book. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1181–1183. doi:10.1057/9780230271227_160. ISBN 9780230271227. After 12 years of civil war involving 5 factions, prominent amongst them the United Somali Congress (USC), the Somali National Movement (SNM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), rebel forces had fought their way into Mogadishu by the end of 1990. (p.1181)
^ Mukhtar, Mohamed Haji (1996). "The plight of the Agro‐pastoral society of Somalia". Review of African Political Economy. 23 (70): 543–553. doi:10.1080/03056249608704222. The Somali Patriotic Movement, representing the Ogaden clan, operated in the Middle and Lower Juba valley (p.550)
^ Duursma, Allard (3 April 2022). "Non-state conflicts, peacekeeping, and the conclusion of local agreements". Peacebuilding. 10 (2): 138–155. doi:10.1080/21647259.2022.2032946. For example, following heavy fighting between the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement/Somali National Alliance (SPM/SNA) in the Kismayo area, UNOSOM together with local clan elders mediated negotiations between the parties which led to the signing of the Jubbaland Peace Agreement on 6 August 1993. (p.153)
^ Osman, Abdulahi A. (2019). "The role of inequality in the collapse of the Somali State". Journal of Somali Studies. 6 (2): 51–74. ProQuest 2328867061. The Somali Patriotic Movement was an armed faction of the Ogaden, a sub-clan of Daarood clan. It was headed by Col. Mohamed Omar Jees, who was a great supporter and an ally of the late General Mohamed Aideed. (p.66)

There's clearly versions of the article in its history which do not include material copied from the Somali National Movement article. Given the editor responsible for the present problems is now blocked, simple reversion to a previous version of the article is possible, no TNT necessary here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These seem to be passing mentions and not SIGCOV as required for orgs. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, the organization is completely different from the SNM and deleting the page for a historically significant armed movement (look it up, the SPM as one of the major rebel groups that overthrew Siad Barre) because some guy made dumb edits to the page isn't a good idea. It needs cleanup and additional sources added, not deletion. - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 03:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, per the above arguments. Bulbajer (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constitutional Commission

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

Tagged as needing sources since 2008. A sort of list of quite different organizations that happen to share a name. WP:N is not established, as this article cites no source that discusses the topic of "constitutional commission" as such, rather than individual ones. Perhaps this could be made into a WP:DAB page. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment (maybe delete). The most newsworthy Constitutional Commission today is that of Chile (see 2023 Chilean constitutional referendum). It is not mentioned. Athel cb (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Convert to DAB:~~ I disagree that "Constitutional Commission" is not notable; it's just another term for a type of constituent assembly. But, this page is more similar to Constitutional Convention and Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), so it should also be a dab. If there were actual content here, beyond unreferenced descriptions of a few commissions, I would propose merging it with constituent assembly, but we don't have that. Alternatively, we could merge Constitutional Convention, Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), and this page into one disambiguation page, since they're all basically the same kind of thing, and have the other two redirect to the one page. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In light of James' !vote, I would say that the information that he's provided should be added to constituent assembly in its own section. I still don't see the need for a separate article, unless and until that article is too long and we need to spinoff a new article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per my discussion with James and his !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, but quite possibly split State constitutional commissions in the United States and others. Constitutional commissions (plural) satisfy GNG. There are sources that discuss "constitutional commissions" (plural) as a group. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least Australia and the US) in scope: [31] (see pp 19 to 21; also published at 19 Public Law Review 308). It deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. It seems to indicate that "constitutional commissions" in that sense are not just a name. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least the whole of the Commonwealth) in scope: [32] (see pp 239 and 240; see also p 62). Again it deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. I think this source, in particular, is broad and general enough to make dabification unnecessary. The following deal with state constitional commissions (plural, because multiple states have them) in the US: [33] (see s 546 to p 575) [34] (see section on "constitutional commissions") [35] (see pp 423 to 429) [36] [37]. The following deals with ten constitutional commissions for multiple countries in former British Africa: [38] [39]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in former British colonies generally: [40]. James500 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC) The following deals with constitutional commissions in British decolonization: [41]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in transitional states: [42]. This source is completely international in scope. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I should point out that WP:GNG is solely a test of the volume of coverage that exists in independent reliable sources, not the length of any Wikipedia article. If a sub-topic satisfies GNG we do not have to wait until the article on the parent topic becomes too long in order to create an article on the sub-topic. That would be a serious nuisance to editors, and GNG was created to prevent nuisance arguments and nuisance disputes about whether the parent article is or is not too long. I should also point out that that approach is likely to result in the parent article becoming unbalanced, to the point where the sub-topic is given disproportionate space in the parent article. The whole point of GNG is to stop this kind of thing. [I should also point out that Constituent assembly is already 38kB long. It is already fairly lengthy, and does not need to be "stuffed" with even more sub-topics.] James500 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough point regarding article splits and based on source 2, I'm persuaded that a constitutional commission is sufficiently distinct from other forms of constituent assemblies. That said, the several articles we have on this topic are a mess and there should be some sort of discussion about how to reorganize these articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that at this moment this page presently needs to be rewritten. I think that anyone who has read the sources should be able to the rewrite the article. I expect that it will be rewritten soon. I do not think that a discussion is necessary to decide how to reorganize this article, because I think it is obvious how this article should be reorganized. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Article needs to be improved as there are clear issues with the article (for example empty headings), besides that, I would vote keep

Mr Vili talk 04:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Association for Research into Crimes against Art

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

Non notable organization. Can't find any significant coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Agreed, I cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search. Maybe worth mentioning in another article but definitely does not need an article of its own. Endersslay (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please check the updated article. I have cited some 54 links to ARCA's work at this time. Many of the governmental and nongovernmental institutions, as well as mainstream newspapers and art-related publications. I am a bit puzzled that you could not find any reliable sources. I hope the ones I have added suffice. Avignonesi Avignonesi (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Avignonesi, replying to you here since the threads are getting mixed up. Sources that mention an article subject in passing are generally not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:SIGCOV and, for pages of this type, Wikipedia:SIRS, on the standards by which we evaluate this. Despite the new sources you've added, the problems raised in our longer thread below (most are primary or cursory mentions) remain in my view. As such, most of the substance of the article is not a synthesis of in-depth secondary sources, but rather original research. See Wikipedia:NOR. Arcendeight (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting I have just edited my typo "threats" to "threads." Apologies! Arcendeight (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Agree for similar reasons. Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material. Also looked into alternative places to mention the subject, but none of the organizations or individuals mentioned has its own article. Arcendeight (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bear in mind that ARCA works with relevant law enforcement agencies in Europe, the United States, and the UK, many of which intentionally have a smaller electronic "footprint" by choice or who would require layers of permissions to authorise having their names used. This should not reflect negatively on the CSO or its work mission, but rather speaks to the discretion required when working in the crime prevention and intelligence gathering arena. Avignonesi (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take another look and change my vote if convinced, but I would emphasize that our standards for notable coverage don't make exceptions for supposedly secret or discreet activities. I'm not sure what you mean by CSO in your preceding mission. Is this another name for the ARCA? I don't see the acronym anywhere in the article.

Separately, I'm not convinced much of the content in the article is particularly notable. For example, that an affiliated researcher has been appointed to a position at the British Museum doesn't mean much; I would find that much more notable if there was an official partnership between the ARCA and the British Museum. Also 3/11 paragraphs in this article are about one sentence in a Dan Brown novel mentioning the ARCA.

In any case, I'll look into the sources added and consider changing my vote, but as it stands, even if the article is kept, I think much of this content should go. In the meantime, I'll do some copy-editing as its not in a great state. Arcendeight (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On further consideration, I'm sticking to my original position. I further note that most of the sources included do not meet the criteria in WP:SIRS. By my count, only ~7 of 17 sources are secondary, the rest are used as primary sources. And several of these secondary sources don't stand for the propositions they're provided for. Two, for example, are about the Lot 448 film, but neither of the two mentions any tie between the film and ARCA. This does not count as significant coverage, which I think is really the crux of the issue: ARCA is, charitably, mentioned briefly only in a few secondary sources. By way of further example, the whole anecdote about the quotation in the Dan Brown book is only cited with reference to a blog post that does not contain the text the article claims it does! Arcendeight (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Arcendeight, I continue to disagree with/oppose this article's deletion though perhaps, earlier, it did need a significant update. In hopes that you will change your opinion, I will start this discussion explaining what a CSO is civil society organization using wikipedia's own entry for such organisation types. I have also added this to the article for clarification in case others are similarly stumped. ARCA has been in existence, providing expertise it its field since 2009. CSO is a term which is fairly common in United Nations circles and given there are articles describing them I thought it was already clear. Hope my change has rectified that. My apologies in advance as I assumed if you were editing/following this page, you yourself worked in Civil Society circles or in the fields of Law or not-for-profits. In the US, UK, and EU there are different categories for not for profit and they are divided into the types of "causes" and memberships they represent and in the US also according to tax status. ARCA is a CSO via European Union standards. Now on to the tough stuff, I've added significantly more citations using primary and secondary sources. They are in fact out there and available, if one knows where to look. Since that too may not have been clear, I have probably overcited, in hopes to put this to rest. I am happy to edit this page further to make it compliant with what you are looking for, though I do think the article now qualifies as being encyclopedic as well as verifiable and Notable given that significant coverage of ARCA's work and activities sited in this article are backed up and cited in reliable professional and media sources.

ARCA's been around and working on cultural property issues and crimes for more than a decade and has trained heritage professionals working in more than 40 countries. While small, it does important work and it is recognised by government institutions like the United Nations, UNESCO, Europol, Interpol and most countries with art and antiquities crime investigation units.

To link to some of its more public work, which I have cited and linked a PDF to ARCA's CEO was invited in official partnership to the British Museum's task force on this theft which involves more than 2000 objects from their collection. This is a select committee where ARCA's representative, Lynda Albertson, is only of just two of the 13 members appointed to the task force which have been publicly named. The other being James Ratcliff from the Art Loss Register. We cited this partnership as it is one of the few we are not judicially barred from discussing.

Albertson is also the individual whose work with ARCA is highlighted in the film Lot 448 which was a Tribeca Film Festival documentary entry. The film mentions ARCA both in the filming sequences, as well as in its credits. I've added a second film credit, both of which are in IMDB for verification.

As for the Dan Brown mention, I agree it is dated, and if it needs to go, I have no problems with it being deleted however it is verifiable that the organisation is cited in Brown's book, and the reference material he used was extracted from the blog article referenced.

If you tell me what else this article lacks or needs, I'd be happy to try and see if I can find the requested data, but I don't think this page is is violation of wikipedia's focus on encyclopedic articles, or at least any longer. Avignonesi (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose/Keep. I respectfully disagree. I was quickly able to find relevant links to important organisations who have worked with and cited the civil society's work including, UNESCO, UNIDROIT, and a European Commission funded project which substantiate this organisation's role in the art and antiquities crime area and therefore as a relevant entry to Wikipedia. I also note a recent documentary film, entered into the Tribeca film festival in 2021 which also highlighted the work this organisation has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avignonesi (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no significant coverage from secondary sources. There are brief passing mentions, but that doesn't help the case for notability PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, mentions overwhelmingly fail to meet WP:SIGCOV. As such, most of the article is OR. Arcendeight (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to state for the record that I have made no threats, and I would appreciate it if the editor named "Arcendeight" would edit his/her comment for clarity. I believe they may have meant to use the word "threads" ,as threats implies malicious behavior, but given they used the word "threats" twice in their Talk rebuttal, I would appreciate it if they would clarify their statements or lined through them acknowledging to the Wikipedia administrators reviewing this page for possible deletion, that there has been no such activity on my part.

Nota Bene:

I would be remiss if I did not add that it has not gone unnoticed, that the most vocal of the editors marking this article as AfD, "Arcendeight", previously reversed edits I made, in relation to a more contentious entry to an article regarding a living person which related to the subject's editorial decisions regarding the nonpublication of an article on the topic of genocide in relation to the current Isreali war on Palestine. While I disagreed with the revert. I removed myself from that article's editing in order to not engage in controversy.

Shortly after that, and apparently following the articles I have edited to the one on the Association for Research into Crimes against Art Wikipedia article, this same editor has now voted in favor of AfD. This is unsettling considering the probability of one single Wikipedia editor electing to edit two unrelated articles I have edited, out of the 6,781,369 articles listed on Wikipedia (as of February 2024) seems more than tangentially coincidental, especially given the fact that I had bowed out of editing the page where we had previously had opposing viewpoints.

Despite my concerns regarding this "follow" and in the spirit of moving forward and working to correct very real deficits to this previously quite stale article over the course of several days, in the spirit of collaboration I have done the following.

I have (again) reviewed Wikipedia:Notability which discusses that a article's entity must be verifiable and that it must have significant coverage in reliable sources which are more than a trivial mention, but do not need to be the main topic of the source material. I have also reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which states that 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.

While I believe that this was already concretized with the edits I made to this article earlier this week, which included the addition of more than 60 primary and secondary source citations, including the Association for Research into Crimes against Art being cited in newspaper articles, journal articles, and high level institutional acknowledgements of the Association's work coming from UNESCO, UNIDROIT, ICOM, I would still like to try to further address the editors, who are in favour of the deletion of this article, concerns. Bearing in mind that they have said they "cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search" and "Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material."

Here is the listing of even more citations which meet the secondary source criteria which I have now added to this article. For clarity, I have listed the topic areas where I have inserted these additional citations and am happy to move them elsewhere if the editors believe they would be better positioned someplace else in the article.

ARCA's founding, listing as a nonprofit CSO and information about its work mission, are detailed in these secondary source books and conference papers. In addition I have listed a few secondary source journal articles.

Hufnagel, Saskia, and Duncan Chappell, eds. The palgrave handbook on art crime. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2019.

Van Herzeele, Richard. "16 Connecting the dots." Global Perspectives on Cultural Property Crime (2022): 220.

Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Three Themes in Transition: Soft Power, Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Goods, and the Cartography of World Heritage Sites." International Relations and Heritage: Patchwork in Times of Plurality. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. 263-284.

Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Two Sides of the Same Coin: Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods and Repatriation Toward a New Relational Ethics." Soft Power and Heritage. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023. 261-279.

Massih, Jeanine Abdul, and Shinichi Nishiyama. "Final Conclusions and Remarks." Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000-2011: Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut 2015 (2018): 449.

Bruinsma, Gerben, ed. Histories of transnational crime. Vol. 9. New York: Springer, 2015.

ARCA's work and members research in capacity building, art crime during conflict, and the recovery of illicit antiquities is highlighted in these secondary source journal articles, conference papers, and book.

Hardy, Samuel Andrew. "Criminal money and antiquities: An open source investigation into transnational organized cultural property crime." (2020): 154-167.

Tsirogiannis, Christos. "Mapping the supply: usual suspects and identified antiquities in ‘reputable’auction houses in 2013." Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 25 (2015): 107-144.

Sulistyo, Iwan, et al. "A Review Towards Global Crime Governance in Overcoming Trafficking in Cultural Property." 3rd Universitas Lampung International Conference on Social Sciences (ULICoSS 2022). Atlantis Press, 2023.

Guss, Aleksandra. ‘Międzynarodowa Konferencja„Konwencja UNIDROIT z 1995 r.’ Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze II, no. 50 (2021): 293–99.

Simone, Cristina, Mara Cerquetti, and Antonio La Sala. "Museums in the Infosphere: Reshaping value creation." Museum Management and Curatorship 36.4 (2021): 322-341.

Di Paola, F., Giuseppe Milazzo, and Francesca Spatafora. "Computer aided restoration tools to assist the conservation of an ancient sculpture. The colossal statue of Zeus enthroned." The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 42 (2017): 177-184.

Amore, Anthony M., and Tom Mashberg. Stealing Rembrandts: The untold stories of notorious art heists. St. Martin's Press, 2011.

ARCA's professional training initiatives are outlined in this journal article and book.

BARTLEY, JANE E., et al. "Accessing Continuing Education for Provenance Research." 16th Annual Society of American Archivists (SAA) Research Forum Proceedings. Chicago, IL: SAA. Retrieved from https://www2. archivists. org/am2022/research-forum-2022/agenda# peer Brummer Gallery Records.(2022) N. Vol. 1147. 2023.

Herman, Alexander. "Plundering Beauty: A History of Art Crime during War." Art Antiquity & Law 25.1 (2020): 93-98.

Huffer, Damien, et al. "From the Ground, Up: The Looting of Vưườn Chuối within the Vietnamese and Southeast Asian Antiquities Trade." public archaeology 14.4 (2015): 224-239.

Confirmation of ARCA's annual conference can be found in this secondary source book and two secondary (magazine) sources.

Rush, Laurie Watson, and Luisa Benedettini Millington. The Carabinieri command for the protection of cultural property: saving the world's heritage. Vol. 17. Boydell & Brewer, 2015.

O'Byrne, Robert. "Art theft is nothing new--the 17th century saw churches across Italy robbed of their Raphaels, wrote RW Lightbown in 1963." Apollo. Vol. 181. No. 632. Apollo Magazine Ltd., 2015.

Abungu, George Okello. "Museums: geopolitics, decolonisation, globalisation and migration." Museum International 71.1-2 (2019): 62-71.

The point now being, that I think this article demonstrates sufficient evidence, but has an excess of reliable sources (some 70 in total) which document, in overkill, the subject's significant coverage instead of a lack of documented noteworthiness, or lack of documented reliable sources independent of the article's subject.

Especially when I look at other Civil Society Organisation articles within Wikipedia that are themselves not up for AfD and are similarly well cited. I might also add that there are other extremely poorly documented societies, organizations, activist groups, etc., which have not been well documented as being noteworthy who have not been stubbed AfD.

In conclusion, I am happy to edit out the superfluous, or if the other editors prefer to do so they have the liberty to do so themselves and I think I have provided them with sufficient material to vet what they feel gets the job done.

I'd also like to stress is that this is not a static page marked for Afd where the original creating editors have no investment in fixing the problem. One can see by the number of edits, that I am actively trying to improve the articles deficits, now that said deficits have been brought to my attention. I believe in doing so, this article adheres to and complies with (current) Wikipedia's standards. I could use tightening, and I can ask another editor to do so, but I did not want to wade into the vote matching approach to addressing this via the AfD talk but rather where edits normally occur, in furtherance of improving articles themselves. avignonesi (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 sources that are 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage are better than 70 one line mentions. From a look over the sources you have added there are none that are all three of those things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your comment Parakanyaa, if you can please select the three out of the 70 you feel meet the standards, given that you have read all the new additions in the 2 hours and 16 mins since I posted, I would be pleased to know which meet your standards. But to say that all 70 are passing mention only is categorically inaccurate. avignonesi (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The onus is on you as the person who provided them. I checked several and they all seemed to fail. Feel free to provide three that qualify. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, Early in my edits made this weeks to rectify problems on this page resulted in me deleting links and citations which didn't pass the 1-2-3 criteria you mention. All citations that are embedded now are:

1) reliable (most being academic sources, primary news sources, or publications from academic presses.

2) independent of the subject at the time the articles, books or conference papers were written, (though for transparency, three authors have been affiliated with the organisation AFTER the writing of the article or book indicated.

3) significant and not passing coverage. They speak to the Association's activities, its formation, its assistance in the recovery of looted and stolen art in the United States and the UK, and to it being called upon to comment on, or research, art and antiquities related crimes based upon its expertise.

Additionally, since 2010, this organisation has been noteworthy enough to annually draw conference attendees from around the world who attend ARCA art crime conference and have objectively written so in articles I've cited. Photos of these events showing 90-100 attendees are available on the association's own social media pages which I did not link to as they would be self referential.

Lastly since 2020 ARCA has been consulted upon and filmed regarding their work in investigations in two documentaries, both of which I have included and cited, one produced and paid for by SkyArts, a not insignificant channel, and the other sponsored by the jewellery company BVLGARI using an award winning director, as their entry into the Tribeca film festival. It doesn't make sense that a major Italian firm would sponsor an organisation that didn't hold standing in the field, nor would SkyArts waste valuable airtime approving a documentary which is/was viewable on their UK and Italian channels, which doesn't hold their viewers interest.

Respectfully, I think it is safe for now to say that we simply disagree. avignonesi (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All you've done is WP:REFBOMB this article in an effort to save it. That is not a winning tactic. If you show me three of the many, many sources you've added that fulfill all three of what I mentioned above, then sure, but what you have provided is not a valid reason to keep the article. We can't keep it just because it's important, somehow, if there is not significant coverage to back up that fact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already agreed that the total number of citation is in excess and have specifically asked for the dissenting editors assistance on which to keep and which to omit, moreover, because the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, as Wikipedia itself states. To wit, I asked @PARAKANYAA for his assistance, which he declined. I was simply asking for constructive feedback from the editors in favor of the AfD to select which they felt provided the clearest examples of citations within Wikipedia's current standards for inclusion, especially in light of the fact that they felt this article should be removed.

I state on this record however that my "citation overkill" was done in part to highlight the fact that @PARAKANYAA claimed he could not find any significant coverage on the subject of this article and @Endersslay stated they too could not find any reliable sources when they did a detailed search.

The fact that I found so many, I think shows I have an interest in not only preserving the article, but underscoring that the other two editors are perhaps less well versed in the subject matter. If I am wrong, I ask them in the spirit of collaboration to please feel free to provide me with a counter viewpoint.

All that said, I categorically affirm that the citations added were not inserted to shore up my point, in contrast they were added to underscore the ease of which I found secondary sources documenting this organisation and to also underline the notability of the subject. My intent was for the opposing editors to take the time to read the linked existing legitimate sources to end this dispute, and knowing some are paywalled or are found in expensive academic books, I thought it best to make the list as comprehensive as possible and to then whittle that list back collaboratively.

While I have (repeatedly) stated that I am aware of the citation clutter, I have also (repeatedly) requested the opposing editors decide for themselves what they themselves want to see as a "legitimate source" given they are the ones voting in favour of AfD.

@PARAKANYAA said the onus is on me, but I am not in favor of deletion, so therefore I am not in a position to decide what he thinks does or does meet his standard. And as I perfectly know that no one knows everything or about the existence of everything. A subject's existence need not be known about by most people in order to qualify for an article. Some obscure physics and philosophy concepts are only known to a handful of scholars, but since these concepts are described by a number of reliable sources, Wikipedia elects to have articles about them. The study of art and antiquities crime should be no different.

With that in mind,

Here are not three but five select group citations. I have more than three as these are available to all editors as they are all open source whereas others are not.

Citation 6

Hufnagel, Saskia, ed. (2019). The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime. published by Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1137544049. The editors of this book state who Noah Charney is and that he is the founder of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. They also state that he serves as the editor-in-chief of The Journal of Art Crime, the first peer-reviewed academic journal in the field and confirm the organisation's website.

Citation 13

ARCA is acknowledged for its research by the International Council of Museums' - ICOM) International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods. ICOM is an organisation made up of 45,000 members representing museums and museum employees in 138 countries. The ICOM observatory's citation reinforces that ARCA is part of a important network of international partners including international organisations, law enforcement agencies, research institutions and external expert stakeholders working in the field of illicit trafficking as it relates to cultural property which museum professionals can turn to.

Citation 42

ARCA is cited within the framework of the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and as a direct partner with UNESCO providing training in conflict and post conflict middle eastern countries. This citation clear shows that ARCA conducted this training, funded through UNESCO's Heritage Emergency Fund. As an added confirmation UNIDROIT mentions this training and photographs ARCA's CEO one one of the days of the training alongside a poster of the training session which has ARCA's logo clearly displayed alongside UNESCO's and UNIDROIT. https://www.unidroit.org/training-program-for-specialist-working-to-deter-cultural-property-theft-and-the-illicit-trafficking-of-antiquities/

Citation 53

In the open source court filings for the State of New York against Michael Steinhardt, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos speaks to the fact that Ms. Albertson directs ARCA, an initiative to promote the study and research of art crime and cultural heritage protection and that in this role ARCA compiles dossiers on international trafficking networks and liaises with law enforcement globally.

Citation 55

ARCA was invited to UNESCO's Paris Headquarters as part of a Category 6 expert committee, aimed at reinforcing due diligence conducted in the European art trade while sensitising relevant stakeholders to the different implications of illicit trafficking of cultural property. This is confirmed by the PDF document which shows that Ms. Albertson gave a presentation right after the opening remarks in which she provided the attendees with an overview of the European art market and its role in the illicit trafficking of cultural property.

Thank you for your time. avignonesi (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the extent that you seem to allege bad faith, @Avignonesi, I categorically deny that. I edit regularly from my watchlist as you can see on my userpage. Your talk page is on my watchlist precisely because, when I reverted your edit a month ago, I posted a message there in order to explain my reasoning. As such, the AfD notification and subsequent CS1 error messages are on my watchlist. I apologize for any stress this perceived "follow," as you put it, may have caused. In any case, that is irrelevant to the substance of this discussion and my views are clear above, so I will bow out. Should you wish to discuss this further, I think my talk page or yours would be a more appropriate place so as not to clutter the AfD for the purpose of determining consensus. Warmly Arcendeight (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, easily meets GNG per sources existing and added. There seems to be a complaint about sourcing, with a call for "3, only 3". The first one I clicked on seems notable, so let's go one by one. Here's the first, from the Yale Daily News. Anything wrong with that one? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for contributing to this discussion and I agree this one is ok @Randy Kryn. I am not sure why the previous editors are asking me to justify with only three citations but I am trying to get this review for deletion rectified.

What do you think about the other five citations that I posted above? I tried to select from extremely reputable international sources that I truly hope won't be contestable. avignonesi (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't interviews not count for notability? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PARAKANYAA Having read interviews, I would agree with you that the Yake citation is Primary as per wikipedia's notations. So I have removed it, also because there were sufficient others which confirm the same details. That leaves 70 others if you want to go through these one by one. My suggestion is to look to the five I listed above as they assuredly meet your

Citations 6, 13, 42, 53, 55. I specifically asked that these be reviewed as I am sure these in particular (and many others) meet the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage criteria for justifying this articles presence within Wikipedia.

I listed these as I did not want to slow you down with your review process with links that are paywalled or books you might not have access to unless you are able to visit important art historical libraries. avignonesi (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Citation 53: court filings do not count for notability

Citation 55: being listed in a document with no commentary or discussion does not count for notability

Citation 6 has them citing ARCA but no actual discussion of the organization.

Citation 13 is just a listing of their resources (primary?)

Citation 42, they're mentioned briefly but little to no discussion on them, this one is closer though

None of these count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why would interviews not count for notability? The Yale Daily News is a reputable newspaper and (at least in the old bygone days) journalists usually check for accuracy and would be questioning the existence and importance of this organization if the data was inaccurate. The nomination states that no significant coverage exists, but it seems obvious from the added sources that it does. Why not just close the nom, or does the nominator still think that sources don't exist? Randy Kryn

Read WP:Interviews. Essay not policy of course, but still. Good for facts but getting interviewed by a reliable source doesn't make one notable. Yes, they exist, they're not a hoax, sources exist, but not ones showing significant coverage PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An opinion essay. Please be aware of how journalism works (or used to). Journalists check, then double-check, sources, and clarify all statements to the best of their ability. Interviews are usually secondary sources, not primary, and individuals or facts used in interviews are then vetted, analyzed, and either passed as correct or the article or interview is scrapped. The opinion essay may not take the process of journalism into account. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interviews are inherently primary as they are not independent from the subject, and therefore cannot count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you read my comment above? Primary means the topic subject is writing about itself with no review or vetting being done. An interview of the subject or someone associated with the subject then falls under fact-checking and normal journalistic methods. Journalism 101. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The interview with the person who runs the organization is obviously not independent of the organization. All mentions of ARCA in that interview are from the founder of the organization - no journalism involved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PARAKANYAA, you're wrong. Interviews are not inherently primary. Also, Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. If the local radio station interviews a historian about local history, then that doesn't make the historian non-independent of the subject of the interview (which is local history, not the expert).

Interviews can be independent or non-independent. An example of an independent interview is when the interviewer is a journalist, the interviewee is a historian, and the subject of the interview is a piece of history that the interviewee had nothing to do with. An example of a non-independent interview is when the interviewee is an actor, and the subject of the interview is the latest film the actor starred in.

Interviews can be primary or secondary. An example of a primary interview is when actors are asked questions about their personal experience with making their latest films. An example of a secondary interview is when the historian explains that there are two main points of view about a historical event, and that each viewpoint has different advantages or limitations.

As a mathematical likelihood, most interviews are primary and non-independent. This particularly includes nearly all interviews of celebrities and politicians. But "most" is not the same as "all". You cannot figure out whether a source is primary or independent merely by looking at whether it's an interview. You must consider whether the interviewee is talking about himself or about something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Fair enough, and in future discussions I will take that into consideration.

Still, this is the entire portion about ARCA: "There was a big New York Times Magazine article about it at the same time “The Art Thief” came out, so the momentum allowed me to establish the ARCA, the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. It creates a bridge between academics and police by teaching police about art crime strategy with theory and practical knowledge." and "ARCA has established the first library with books published in the field of art crime and there are about 250 books in the collection,". He is talking about his organization. Non-independent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the source in question is an interview, then we'd call that non-independent and primary. But if it's a normal newspaper article, and one small portion of the article quotes him, then that newspaper article is still independent overall, so Wikipedia would treat it as an independent source.

Similarly, a newspaper article might be primary or secondary; see WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more on that. I find that, over the years, editors have been quick to assume that newspaper articles are "second-hand, and therefore secondary", but even though that's the common mistake, it's also important not to go too far the other direction. If the newspaper article provides comparison, analysis, evaluation, etc., then it's secondary (according to our rules). It can be a bit complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's the second page source I clicked on, from UNESCO, a reputable organization. What is wrong with this one? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's nothing in there that is "significant coverage" of ARCA. They are mentioned, that isn't a point for notability when there's nothing else. I will concede that is a lot better than most of these other sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole article is about the collaboration event between UNESCO and the Association, everything in it concerns ARCA and UNESCO. Not understanding keeping this open, the nom has been well addressed and improvements in sources and to the page since its inception fulfill what should be the main purpose of AfD, to save articles that are savable with further effort (in this case the effort seems to have been successfully put in). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not saveable. At best there is one source that sort-of-maybe counts and nothing else. Interviews with the people who run an organization are inherently connected to that organization (therefore failing the criterion that sources be independent) and do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read Journalism ethics and standards. These standards cover interviews. Interviews, if published by reputable newspapers, magazines, or hard-news television shows, are secondary sources. They are vetted. They are fact checked. As for "this is not saveable" that seems an incorrect assessment, as it has already been saved by the addition of many reputable sources (I've clicked on a couple more, the page is notable, and this discussion has become a time sink). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. Not a single source I have seen seems to show this organization being notable, merely 70 very brief mentions. Notability is not inherited and someone who is in the organization mentioning the organization in an interview for two brief sentences certainly does not count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Now about 6 times larger than when nominated, on raw bytes, & seems ok. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Johnbod and Headbomb: This org publishes the Journal of Art Crime. It's not listed in Scopus, and I'm not sure how else to determine whether art and/or law journals might be notable. Do you have any suggestion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Sorry, no - I don't know much about journal notability. But many notable organizations must publish non-notable journals. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I have checked twenty of the references cited in this article and find them to meet the secondary citation criteria as well as the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant criteria. Some of the other citations are unavailable to me due to paywalls or the fact that the academic publication/book cited I do not personally own.

It is my opinion that this improved article meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, however it could still use more work for smoother reading and perhaps arranging some citations in a better way and removing the redundant ones. A better alternative to deletion is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page, alerting others who read the article to the improvements that need to be made.

As it stands though it is overall a well cited article with numerous confirmatory secondary sources which I had no difficulty in confirming via open source and digital news sites.

While the subject of this article is an organisation working in a niche specialised field that may be more well known to those familiar with the fields of art historical research and art and antiquities restitution, it is no less notable than other organisations that are listed in wikipedia hyper-focused on art crime research, such as the Max Stern Art Restitution Project, or the Antiquities Coalition, India Pride Project, and others. All of whom have pages and are organisations bigger and smaller than this particular one. who have not been cited for removal and who also do equally fine work.

It is my opinion that many really good articles today started their Wiki life looking really awful. This one being 3/4th of the way to where it needs to be to be in good form. If not knowing about a subject were a good reason for deletion, we would be left with really few if any articles.

To me the article on the Association for research into Crimes against Art should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Considering this user has never edited before today and the singular other edit is related to art forgery I assume there is a COI involved in this user's statement. Send some of those 20 references that fulfill the requirements, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have multiple degrees in art history and am interested in this field I have no COI. I simply started with simple things, articles on subjects I have an interest in and feel confident. If I had edited only one article on high speed trains, would you discount my opinion because I have never edited on art before? I don't think any new editor starts out editing by choosing a subject they are not interested in. I may be new to editing but not to the subject of crimes and criminals in the art world which is why I took an interest in this page, and when I saw it was up for possible deletion, I wanted to give input.

Before voicing my opinion though, I spent time reading the entire article itself before making suggestions for improvements and also verified the links in this discussion and many of the others linked in the article which were available to me. (as I already stated).

I will close with saying I understand, Wikipedia encourages editors to: Please do not bite the newcomers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

So thanks for making this newcomer feel genuinely (un)welcome.

Happy Easter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus which currently is split between HEY and delete, as the newly added references might not satisfy SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- sources already in article are more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. I see above some people arguing that notability standards for organizations are higher than the GNG. This is false. A subject is notable if it meets either a subject specific notability guideline OR the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is not a single source in this article that would satisfy GNG PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, clearly that's your opinion, as you've already stated it about a zillion times. I'm happy to trust the closing admin to evaluate the arguments by quality rather than quantity. Central and Adams (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break

Comment: This has been REFBOMBED real badly. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @StreetcarEnjoyer, Thank you for contributing and for commenting.

I am (painfully) aware that there are too many citations currently and have acknowledged that in the earlier threads above and have been actively working to rectify this.

In the beginning, this article was AfD's with two initial reviewers recommending deletion saying they couldn't find citations about the organisation. Rightly, the article was outdated, and in need of a revamp in keeping with contemporary Wikipedia standards which I then did, making extensive changes.

Despite knowing that when an article meets WP:N, the mere fact that its subject may seem obscure to these editors does not, under any circumstances, mean it should be deleted, I went back in and tried to add as many open source references as possible, in part to show that the subject was not as obscure as the early reviewers thought.

This was done in part to prove a point, that either those recommending deletion had not looked very hard, or perhaps given its niche topic of concern, the dissenting editors didn't know where to look, or perhaps couldn't access or didn't take the time to look through some paywalled, print, or out of print publications which confirm this organisation's notability. I thought adding to many, rather than two few would assist in the review process.

The plethora of citations was also done to validate secondary sources on the organisation's formation, its work, its training programs, and its conference initiatives. Which now brings us to from a poorly cited article to an overly cited one.

As you can see from last week's lack of consensus, some very seasoned editors agree that there are sufficient secondary citations and notability, and one new-to-Wikipedia editor (as well as myself) both spoke to the article's need for reworking, which is a separate discussion apart from whether it meets criteria to stay or should go.

For the moment, I haven't started that reworking as I don't want to eliminate the citation overkill until we achieve a consensus on which citations are critical and which should go. Once that's done, I am happy to adjust there placement to achieve a smoother article or can leave those changes to anyone else interested in taking on the task.

I even created a citation shortlist which I had hoped the dissenters or other editors passing by might comment on. Again, no consensus.

End comment, I do feel this article meets notability criteria and has sufficient secondary sources cited to confirm this and therefore believe it should not end up in the dustbin.

Likewise, Several established long term editors, one of whom is a former administrator, also agrees and we have established that this agency's work has been acknowledged by United Nations affiliated organisations such as UNESCO and other NGOs. I commit to going in and editing out the redundant or superfluous citations once we conclude the AfD discussion, which I had hoped would have been yesterday, but now see will continue for another round. Avignonesi avignonesi (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Hi @StreetcarEnjoyer, Thanks for your comment.

I am (painfully) aware that there are too many citations currently and have acknowledged that in the threads above and will work to rectify this. In the beginning, this article was AfD's with two initial reviewers recommending deletion saying they couldn't find citations about the organisation.

Knowing that when an article meets WP:N, the mere fact that its subject may seem obscure to these editors does not, under any circumstances, mean it should be deleted, I went back in and added what has now been commented on as too many citations.

This was done in part to prove a point, that either those recommending deletion had not looked very hard, or perhaps given the niche topic, didn't know where to look, or perhaps couldn't access or didn't take the time to look through paywalled, academic, or out of print publications which confirm this organisation's notability. I thought adding them would assist in the review process.

The plethora of citations was also done to validate secondary sources on the organisation's formation, its work, its training programs, and its conference initiatives and to collabboratively ask which ones the reviewers preferred.

Then, as you can see from last week's lack of consensus,some very seasoned editors agreed that there was now sufficient secondary citations and notability, and one new-to-Wikipedia editor (and myself) both stated this with the added acknowledgement that the article still has structural defects and needs reworking, which is separate and apart from the AfD discussion.

For the moment, I haven't done that reworking as I don't want to dedicate time to it if its going to be taken down and if it isn't I didn't want to eliminate the citation overkill until we achieved a consensus on which citations should stay and which should go. Once that's done, I or any other editor willing to take on the task can adjust the citation placements of those references kept, and (hopefully) achieve a smoother article in like with contemporary wikipedia standards. I even created a citation shortlist which I had hoped the dissenters or other editors might comment on. Again, no consensus.

End comments, I strongly feel this article meets notability criteria and has sufficient secondary sources cited to confirm this and that it should therefore should not end up in the dustbin.

Likewise, Several established long term Wikipedia editors, one a former administrator) agree citing that this organisation is notably referenced as a nongovernmental organisation by UNESCO. I am willing to go in and edit out any redundant or superfluous citations if reviewer can just give me some guidance on which they want left in once this AfD discussion is concluded, which I had hoped would have been yesterday, but now see will continue for another round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avignonesi (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Has been thoroughly improved. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment to anyone voting keep: the standards on notability for organizations are substantially higher than a lot of other topics. This article really hasn't been improved at all, merely had several dozen one line mentions thrown at it.

Of the 5 sources of the 70 that were suggested as workable, none were all three of significant, indépendant and reliable. People seem to be simply voting keep because they see a lot of sources, but actually checking these sources shows that they're all just offhand mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of my posts above, discussing only two of the many sources, you accepted one as fine and argued that the second was an interview, which I countered as a secondary source. You now say that none of the sources are "workable". Did you change your mind on the first source I suggested? We can go source by source if need be. And to ascertain if the "article hasn't been improved at all", even though, as Johnbod points out, it has been expanded sixfold since nominated, are you saying that none of the expansion is relevant towards easing your concerns? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interviews are not independent so they cannot count for notability, especially with regard to organizations. Even if it did, there are two sentences even partially about ARCA, failing the "significant" aspect. I also addressed every source that was presented to me. I did not accept the UNESCO source as fine, it's still affiliated with ARCA and is not enough about them to be significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We disagree about interviews and had an extended discussion above as to the merits of interviews. Another, the Antique Trade Gazette, it seems that the British Museum used the services of this Association. This indicates trust and prior knowledge of the British Museum to the reliability of the Association as a reputable organization which could both address and solve its concerns. How is this irrelevant? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being trusted does not matter if there is not significant coverage. WP:NORG says "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."

ARCA has not. It does not matter how important they may or may not be, there is no coverage of them that is 1) significant 2) reliable 3) independent 4) secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lest I be accused of "Policy Bombing" I would like to point out gently that Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars and that an uncivil environment is a poor environment.

When editors make unverifiable assumptions as to another editors's motivations in casting their vote it is not only unconducive to achieving a positive outcome to this or any other AfD , but it can also be interpreted as disparaging.

In the prior AfD round for this article, we have already experienced discussions between experienced editors with many years of Wikipedia editing under their belts who clearly disagreed with other editors' opinions, finding sufficient secondary citations which they attested to as being significant, independent and reliable.

However questioning the intention and integrity of a newly minted editor, as was done in the last AfD session, or implying that other editors in this or the previous AfD session did not actually check these sources and voted to keep this article "because they see a lot of sources" is not only pure conjecture, but it could also escalate what is already a spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand.

Statements such as those used above may be construed by some editors as WikiBullying or Point of View (POV) railroading and are counterproductive to achieving consensus.

I personally respect every editor's right to disagree with me regarding my opinion that this article merits saving from deletion. But I would encourage everyone who is involved in this discourse to respect each and every editors' rights to draw their own independent conclusions, even if their opinions differ from one's own. Avignonesi (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's generally considered suspicious when someone makes their account entirely to argue in an AfD, and edits only in the topic area. Read WP:SPA. Sure, they could just be someone with an interest in art crime but making your account solely to vote in an AfD is not a good sign. You, yourself, have edited almost exclusively in the field of art crime, including writing the majority of this page 12+ years ago, editing mostly the articles of people and organizations associated with ARCA or art crime more broadly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hardly anything I've read posted by Parakanyaa seems to be uncivil. Generally, it is considered very suspicious when several brand new accounts appear to vote on an AFD. However, I agree that immediately casting aspirations is a poor idea per Wikipedia:AGF. And to the new editors arriving here, just remember that AfD is not a vote. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes, individually acceptable statements add up to an overall feeling that is not so nice. I assume that this cumulative effect is what the editor complains about, rather than an isolated insult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep - improvements made since nom. Sigcov and WP:GNG appplies.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which of the sources are SIGCOV? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Parakanyaa, I think you need to stop asking this question. Editors are not required to agree with you, nor are they required to WP:SATISFY you by convincing you that their decision is acceptable. We already know you think that this is an inappropriate subject for an article, and we promise that we will not forget your opposition when it comes time to close the discussion. You can stand down now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, I just think that people are seeing 70+ sources and automatically thinking "yeah, notable". But I'll back off. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The morsels of information about ARCA provided by a number of the cited sources (although not by all) do seem to add up. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dropped a COI notification on User talk:Avignonesi, and removed some, just a bit, of the purely promotional text in that article. I mean, that was bad. And the ref-bombing--I hope someone else will help with that. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had been working off line on editing this article for another round without so many references but was undecided if it would be more beneficial to publish those edits during, or after, the conclusion of the AfD process. I'd also hoped other more experienced contributing editors would give guidance on which citations were preferred or pick this task up themselves. I was also heeding The Teahouse's advisory to not litigate every editor's comment in this removal discussion.

I have no COI, as I replied to @Drmies on my talk page. I have merely invested considerable hours researching and understanding this org's work, trying to reshape the content of the article in a meaningful way and with the sole motivation of saving it from deletion.

If my editorial tone was perceived as overly ardent, others could have freely edited themselves to curb my enthusiasm.

One thing I learned during this AfD process is that I'm rusty with Wikipedia editing. So much so that I didn't even know the term citation bombing, until it was referred to my interventions. And while I initially found the accusation insulting I later tried to internalise it as valuable constructive criticism for my over-insertion of citations in the attempt to prove the article's worthiness. My intention was never to obfuscate, but rather to improve the original article with too few sources by pointing out there are sufficient sources out there.

What I know now is:...

Each time I try to address one editor's comment to resolve this article's deficits, new concerns about the article itself, or the editors in favour of keeping are voiced.

My effort to encourage other editors to take a crack at fixing the overly abundant citations has been met with resistance, with one editor saying the onus for fixing them is on me. Only to have that person's recommendation countered with a suggestion that perhaps I shouldn't be writing on this article at all.

Until now I have advocated for the article remaining part of Wikipedia and made edits trying to work towards that end, no matter how contentiousness the AfD discussion has become and despite speculations about my motivations or that of other "keep" contributors.

Wikipedia should be about collaboratively working to create a stronger article when and where possible before deletion, not simply removing an article because no one is interested in the topic enough to give it, and its citations a fair and objective review and not simply wasting valuable editing time critiquing those critiquing, something I too am guilty of.

In the span of this one debate, I could have (hopefully) improved 15 other articles as could many of the other responders.

So I will bow out and leaving this save-kill AfD discussion to others. In the grand scheme of things I hope someone will pick up the gauntlet and redevelop this article into something worthy of keeping.

Defeat is not the worst of failures. Not to have tried is the true failure.

Wikipedianly yours. Avignonesi (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess actual notability, not source volume. As a caution to @Avignonesi: that you're flooding this discussion as you did the article. Please allow other editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Another relisting! There are already more comments than most Afd discussions get , and clearly no consensus to delete. Clear keep. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably relisted due to the fact that this article was refbomb'd to hell and back, and in all this discussion, no one has brought up WP:THREE sources that address ARCA in depth. AfD is not a vote. If there are three good sources that fulfill our requirements for notability, I would have no issue changing my mind, but no one has addressed the argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, seems an obvious keep (or, at least as Johnbod points out, certainly not a delete close). This is a chance to ask something I've often wondered about. Do relistings give extra weight to anyone who comments afterwards? Say, as in this one, things have been talked out and a keep seems obvious (will hawk my only essay, WP:RULEOFTHUMB), but then it's relisted and one or two editors wander by for a ten-second look (happens more than we pay attention to and judge weight by) and vote delete because they usually vote delete, thus throwing the entire discussion aside to put closers attention and concentration on remarks which come after a relisting. Do closers often do that? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I had closed this, it would have been no consensus. There has been no clear assessment of sourcing meeting necessary depth. Refbombing here (not you, Johnbod) and in the article doesn't help any closer. Speaking only as myself Randy Kryn, no, all participation is equally weighted assuming it's policy compliant. Star Mississippi 15:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean, I really wouldn't say it's been talked out, as the ~~one~~ two keep votes that did look at the sources in the article admitted that there are no sources that qualify for notability, but that the fact there were so many brief mentions somehow made it notable - which is contrary to policy and rewards refbombing, and could be done on basically any article for an organization/company. There's gonna be a bunch of short mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Star Mississippi. As for PARAKANYAA, please strike out and greatly edit some of that comment. I am a Keep who looked at and read the adequate sources, and then tried to point out to you several which easily show notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. None of the sources you presented were independent of ARCA, or significant coverage. A two sentence mention by the founder is not significant coverage. For organizations, there must be significant, reliable, independent coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My strike out request was specific to your statement "the one keep vote that did look at the sources in the article" when it's obvious that myself and many other keep commenters had checked the sources. As for independent, we discussed that and disagreed above. As I mention in my non-prize winning essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB, things get a bit bitter between editors when more than one (and even one if obvious) relistings occur, which is why when quite a few editors agree on a Keep with good reasoning then the nomination should be closed, either by the nominator or an admin. This one probably should have ended long-ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replaced one with two. Anyway, independence aside: they were not significant coverage. In what world is two sentences significant coverage? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is hellishly difficult to follow, and PARAKANYAA's point about just three good sources, please is well made, and unanswered. I picked source #22 at random for the sentence "In addition, the Association publishes scholarly books, articles, and reports, and organizes multidiciplinary lectures, conferences, and training opportunities focusing on contemporary topics related to art crime investigation, risk management, and restitution.". It turned out not to support any part of that sentence and not even be about this subject at all but about a marble sculpture. Source #19 turned out to be a 272 page book with no clue as to where in the book to look. Source #17 was a similar length book with no chapter nor page number. This is three randomly picked sources from the refbombing, and they are either vague handwaves or outright false sourcing.
One more random pick just in case: source #7. This turned out to be not about this subject at all. It turned out that the sole connection of the source to the topic was a 26-word potted author biography for the article. It was a source written by Noah Charney, but not actually about either Noah Charney or this subject.
The fact that the article and this AFD discussion has been drenched in this stuff, coupled with a reluctance to just point to three good sources for two weeks, now, is a good indicator that there isn't the sourcing to be had, and some reaching is going on.
Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. I participated in the original discussion and just now saw both relistings. I continue to think the coverage is insufficiently deep. Following @Uncle G's example, I take at random sources 27 through 34.
1. 27 stands for ARCA's mission. The only mention of ARCA is a byline that a person mentioned is their CEO and says nothing about their mission.
2. 28 stands for the same and at least mentions ARCA once (and three more times as a byline), though it doesn't really speak to their mission but rather an event theu organized. Not WP:SIGCOV, I think, but at least its a source that could support something (if not what it currently does) in the article.
3. 29 is paywalled, so I'm afraid I'll skip it for now.
4. 30 and #31 stand for the following: "At the grassroots level, ARCA's objective is to identify emerging and under-examined trends related to the study of art crime and to develop strategies to advocate for the responsible stewardship of our collective artistic and archaeological heritage." #30 It links to an association of archeologists that puts ARCA on a list of organizations "with a similar goal" to it. So it could tenuously stand for the proposition. Still, far from in-depth coverage. #31 merely points to a news story about an antiquities dealer who was arrested. It cites ARCA's blog for the proposition that the dealer had a family history of art-related crimes. Arguably a better indicator of significance than any of the other ones so far, but still not any in-depth coverage of ARCA.
5. 32, #33, and #34 stand for the proposition that "In furtherance of their outreach goals, researchers affiliated with ARCA provide consultative expertise and training on a number looted or stolen cultural property in circulation within the legitimate art market." But #32 merely states that a stolen statue was identified by someone affiliated with ARCA at a trade fair who then notified the police. #33, while being about the same individual, only mentions ARCA as a byline for another subject. #34 includes ARCA on a list of organizations dedicated to "Protecting cultural heritage, documenting loss, reporting crime," which does not directly support the proposition and is, in any case, not significant coverage.
Overall, the sources vary in their actual support for the proposition they stand for, and they seem to uniformly be surface-level mentions. Arcendeight (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are good sources all over, again, at random, look at source 62. It's about the CEO of the organization being featured in a film documentary about her work. I've discussed several good sources now, they exist throughout the references on the page. A personal note, this is one of the easiest "Keeps" and may be the most needlessly prolonged conversations I've read at AfD (and there've been plenty of stale-but-continuing-regardless discussions). Documentaries, operating a successful long-published journal, called into the British Museum and other major institutions who trust, use, and endorse the organization (if they weren't then the museums wouldn't use them), on and on. In summary: Jeez Louise. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Just because a person working for an organization is interviewed doesn't mean that has anything to do with the notability of the organization. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Holy cow but this AfD would be a lot easier to understand and certainly a lot easier to close without nom's continual badgering of everyone who disagrees with their take. Central and Adams (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No one has to agree with me, I'm just pointing out the fact that the supposedly good sources are not in fact GNG worthy. No one has to respond. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should read that essay. It's like it was written about your participation in this AfD. It's eerie. Central and Adams (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not". I'm not demanding a response, and I don't see anywhere I have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. Central and Adams (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you dominate a conversation by replying many times, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of tendentious editing. Central and Adams (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just saying. Central and Adams (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Admin comment Those who have already participated have made their POV known. Please allow for other voices, especially if you want this to close with a consensus found. If you have a new point to make, please then by all means do so but continuing to rehash the same points isn't moving the needle. Star Mississippi 23:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because I have nothing else to do, source eval of this revision (I tried to do a table but it nearly crashed my browser)

Extended content
1 - paywalled/physical source that i can't check 2 - paywalled/physical source 3 - paywalled/physical source 4 - paywalled/physical source 5 - paywalled/physical source 6 - paywalled/physical source 7 - mentioned in a byline, not sigcov 8 - mentioned in passing, not sigcov 9 - not mentioned 10 - mentioned once in passing 11 - listed, no discussion 12 - arca describing itself 13 - ? wouldn't load for me 14 - mentioned once in someone's author bio 15 - paywalled/physical source 16 - paywalled/physical source 17 - paywalled/physical source 18 - paywalled/physical source 19 - mentioned once in passing 20 - paywalled/physical source 21 - paywalled/physical source 22 - mentioned once in passing 23 - mentions their ceo gave a speech, approximately one sentence, 46 words discussing them. better than most but 46 words is not sigcov 24 - mentioned in a byline about an author 25 - mentioned once in passing 26 - listing of ARCA's courses by ARCA 27 - not sigcov, byline 28 - an event they organized, not sigcov 29 - paywalled/physical source 30 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis 31 - not significant coverage, they're used as a citation 32 - not significant coverage, mentioned for one sentence 33 - not significant coverage, mentioned as byline 34 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis 35 - one paragraph describing the courses they sell, 134 words, which is probably closer to significant coverage 36 - paywalled/physical source 37 - paywalled/physical source 38 - ARCA itself, fine for reliability, does not count for notability 39 - information from ARCA itself posted to another site 40 - information on a course they hosted, no information about them as an organization 41 - ARCA itself 42 - mentioned once in passing, no discussion of them as an organization 43 - not even mentioned 44 - paywalled/physical source 45 - an event they hosted 46 - says they held conference, talks a bit about the conference but nothing on the organization itself. this might count. maybe 47 - from ARCA itself 48 - from ARCA itself 49 - paywalled/physical source 50 - paywalled/physical source 51 - listed once, not sigcov 52 - paywalled/physical source 53 - this is a law filing and doesn't count for notability 54 - listed, no commentary, not even a description 55 - ARCA itself, not independent 56 - about the journal, does not mention ARCA 57 - not sigcov, not even mentioned, though their journal is 58 - movie listing site, reliable for the fact the film exists, not sigcov 59 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable 60 - the article cites them, but doesn't talk about them much at all 61 - mentioned once in passing 62 - interview with the founder. might count? at least the interviewer is saying things about arca so maybe but idk if its enough about the organization 63 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable

Extended content

1 - paywalled/physical source that i can't check

2 - paywalled/physical source

3 - paywalled/physical source

4 - paywalled/physical source

5 - paywalled/physical source

6 - paywalled/physical source

7 - mentioned in a byline, not sigcov

8 - mentioned in passing, not sigcov

9 - not mentioned

10 - mentioned once in passing

11 - listed, no discussion

12 - arca describing itself

13 - ? wouldn't load for me

14 - mentioned once in someone's author bio

15 - paywalled/physical source

16 - paywalled/physical source

17 - paywalled/physical source

18 - paywalled/physical source

19 - mentioned once in passing

20 - paywalled/physical source

21 - paywalled/physical source

22 - mentioned once in passing

23 - mentions their ceo gave a speech, approximately one sentence, 46 words discussing them. better than most but 46 words is not sigcov

24 - mentioned in a byline about an author

25 - mentioned once in passing

26 - listing of ARCA's courses by ARCA

27 - not sigcov, byline

28 - an event they organized, not sigcov

29 - paywalled/physical source

30 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis

31 - not significant coverage, they're used as a citation

32 - not significant coverage, mentioned for one sentence

33 - not significant coverage, mentioned as byline

34 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis

35 - one paragraph describing the courses they sell, 134 words, which is probably closer to significant coverage

36 - paywalled/physical source

37 - paywalled/physical source

38 - ARCA itself, fine for reliability, does not count for notability

39 - information from ARCA itself posted to another site

40 - information on a course they hosted, no information about them as an organization

41 - ARCA itself

42 - mentioned once in passing, no discussion of them as an organization

43 - not even mentioned

44 - paywalled/physical source

45 - an event they hosted

46 - says they held conference, talks a bit about the conference but nothing on the organization itself. this might count. maybe

47 - from ARCA itself

48 - from ARCA itself

49 - paywalled/physical source

50 - paywalled/physical source

51 - listed once, not sigcov

52 - paywalled/physical source

53 - this is a law filing and doesn't count for notability

54 - listed, no commentary, not even a description

55 - ARCA itself, not independent

56 - about the journal, does not mention ARCA

57 - not sigcov, not even mentioned, though their journal is

58 - movie listing site, reliable for the fact the film exists, not sigcov

59 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable

60 - the article cites them, but doesn't talk about them much at all

61 - mentioned once in passing

62 - interview with the founder. might count? at least the interviewer is saying things about arca so maybe but idk if its enough about the organization

63 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable

The only sources that might count for notability are 35, 46, and 62, but even then they're iffy on "significance" (though they seem reliable). If anyone can prove any of the paywalled/book sources discuss in depth, but considering they were all added in such a short timespan, I have my doubts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandbox Upload

I've uploaded a draft revision attempting to rework this AfD article on my sandbox. Please note that my revision was created several days back, before @PARAKANYAA 's last comment and after I had bowed out of the discussion in frustration over what seemed to me to be personal attacks. When this was written, I had hoped that a consensus could be reached allowing the article to stay, and if so, this sandbox version, might be adjusted by one of the "Keep" editors.

I (hopefully correctly - first time using sandbox with others) elected to upload this reworked version to my sandbox vs. directly over the live article given there have been several editors who have referenced citations they approved of, or disapproved of. My thinking was that I didn't want to muddle this discussion further or confuse people with differing citations numbers.

I also, where possible eliminated citations from expensive paywalled texts that some editors don't have access to, though Wikipedia:Citing sources does not require me to do so. I did so to eliminate any editor's concern that I simply stuffed random citations from costly books or subscription sites as a way to sneak past editor scrutiny. Removing some of these weakens the article's "keep" defense, but I was trying to find a middle ground to achieve concensus. I must point out that experts who follow art crime know where to gain access to these reference books so I can attest to actually having looked at them, despite one of the editor's comments that these citation additions might have been inserted to obfuscate.

There are still too many citations which don't meet all three criteria, but overall its a clearer article I hope can be saved. I hope someone will consider working on it where I have left of.Avignonesi (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment out of boredom I spent a few hours looking for sources. The problem with searching for sources on this topic is that so many things cite them that it is a royal pain to find. I'm not as strong on delete anymore, it's bizarre because they have done so many things and seem to be very respected in this field (alas not a keep rationale) but are barely talked about on their own in great detail. I won't complain if this is voted keep ATP, I'm gonna try to look more and see if there's anything in the paywalled sources because, maybe. I've found a few articles that are very very close to fulfilling SIGCOV, but nothing that exceeds it. The sources are all very reliable and there's so many that address them but it seems no one has anything to say on them besides saying the basics, actions and quoting them. IDK anymore tbh

If there's nothing or this doesn't qualify a plausible redirect is probably Noah Charney, he founded it and mentions it a lot.

but anyway, for future notice to everyone in this AfD, if you want to save an article please do not refbomb i beg you that turns everything into a nightmare, just get 3-5 of your best sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Museum Ethnographers Group

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep sourcing isn't great, but [43], while a podcast, is a reliable podcast published by the American Anthropologist that provides non-trivial coverage of the group. There isn't a lot else out there that counts toward WP:N (lots of passing mentions though) but my searching finds that this is a long established group that meets regularly and publishes meaningful (reasonably well cited) work by experts in the field. If we had a WP:NJOURNALS that had consensus, this is the kind of thing I'd want it including. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and ORG. I found some passing mentions in news items [44] but there is not enough coverage that indicates this organization merits inclusion on Wikipedia. And sorry to say - this is not an academic journal. It is an organization that is involved in scholarly work. Just because they produce an academic journal doesn't make this organization worthy of inclusion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of largest hotels in Europe

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

Appears to be original research. Links mostly reference the official hotel website. We already have List of largest hotels and I don't think the notability for a continental list is quite there. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Europe, Organizations, Travel and tourism, and .... Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep At least for this list most of it wouldn't be on the main largest hotel list, which is limited to hotels with >3,000 rooms, and there's no real easy way to ascertain a hotel room count without the hotel group websites, as rooms can often be mothballed and be undercounted from municipal authorities and the like. Both use that sourcing and there's no issue as-is with either. Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Articles by continent are not usually seen as violating WP:CROSSCAT.

Wizmut (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:CROSSCAT is not the reason for deletion in this case. It's a case of both notability and original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frivolous comment: I read the article title as List of largest holes in Europe :) Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I think we need to find a consensus. Is it an arbitrary size that "large" is 3,000 or more rooms? Bearian (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, agree with nom that NLIST is failed, as none of the sources in the article, nor any I could find in a search, make this grouping. The topic of "largest hotels" is too niche to get multiple articles, unlike e.g. largest cities. Mach61 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "autobiographies" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. M, Patrick (2023-08-21). "Top 5 Largest Hotels in Europe". Construction Review. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The article notes:
  Of the total hotels in Europe, here are the top 5 largest. The list is based on the number of rooms.
  1. The Izmailovo Hotel in Russia (5,000 rooms)
  2. Barkhatnye Sezony Sportivny Kvartal in Russia (4,688 rooms)
  3. The Cosmos Hotel in Russia (1777 rooms)
  4. The Royal National Hotel in England (1630 rooms)
  5. The Gothia Towers in Sweden (1200 rooms)
2. Tuin, Christel (2015-02-27). "Dit zijn de 5 grootste hotels van Europa" [These are the 5 largest hotels in Europe]. Hospitality Management (in Dutch). Uitgeverij PS. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  According to this page from the publisher^{Internet Archive}, Hospitality Management is a Dutch trade magazine for the hotel industry that is published eight times a year.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow list of largest hotels in Europe to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Construction Review appears to be unreliable Mach61 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salem Urban Development Authority

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

The information in this article is already at Salem metropolitan area (India) but the creator objects to a redirect there so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms, India, and Tamil Nadu. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose: Salem metropolitan area (India) is a jurisdiction or the areas which is officially recognised or notified as Salem metropolitan area. Meanwhile, Salem Urban Development Authority is a seperate Authority or Body that governs the area. For instance, you can also refer the articles, Chennai metropolitan area & Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority for Greater Chennai, Coimbatore metropolitan area & Coimbatore Urban Development Authority for Coimbatore, Hyderabad Metropolitan Region & Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority for Hyderabad.

So, kindly go through it, Metropolitan Area & Metropolitan Development Authority is different from each other.

Yes they are different from each other, but that does not mean that we need a separate article about each one. The information about this topic is already included in the article about the metropolitan area, so this is a WP:CFORK. Mccapra (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I, thought, Same were followed in the articles that, I have mentioned above. In those articles too, contains more or less same informations. May I, know, is there any rules for such articles for existing, meanwhile, not for this one. Ungal Naan2.0 (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The rule is we don’t fork content, so if information is already in one article we don’t recreate it in another. The only reason to split info out from an existing article is to significantly expand it, which this one doesn’t. Otherwise we just create a redirect so anyone searching for information finds it easily. Mccapra (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, instead of nominating for deletion, you can tag the article as "need improvement". That may help to develop articles with additional informations. Visitors also can add some information with thier knowledge. But, still, I can't understand, what additional contents you had seen in the articles like Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and Chennai Metropolitan Area. Can you explain is there any such special rules. Ungal Naan2.0 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Just another Municipal Development Authority.

There are 100 municipal corporations, 2100 Nagar Panchayats, and 1500 municipal councils in India1

User4edits (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ofcourse, 100 Municipal Corporation, 2100 Nagar Panchayats and 1500 municipal councils. But here, it is not Municipal Corporation or Nagar Panchayat or Municipal Council. It is Urban Development Authority. Not all those you have mentioned will not have such authority. Wikipedia may offers visitors regarding specific topics. So, this article may exist, while others are existing. Ungal Naan2.0 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see WP:NCORP, and without going into FALLACY, here are a few:

Just go to Google, and search * Development Authority, and you will get 100s of them. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what, Why can't create articles for them ? Wikipedia has articles for all the 1000s of cities wright ? So, is there any problem with articles for Development Authorities ? Ungal Naan2.0 (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Star Mississippi,

Hope you are doing good.

Actually, I haven't got answered for my previous questions for my earlier defence. Kindly go through it, and make way for retain this article. Ungal Naan2.0 (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not the role of an administrator at AfD, and I don't have the subhect matter interest to act as an editor here. However the onus is on you who wants to retain it to find WP:CORP level sourcing, not anyone else. Star Mississippi 14:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet and no one has commented upon the nominator's suggestion of a Redirect closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete. Troublingly, I can't find a single source which even mentions the existence of this, with the English or Tamil name (see this search), so clear violation of WP:NGO and WP:V. The section in the metropalitan area article also only cites sources about the passage of some law which doesn't mention the existence of this. Mach61 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Beach Township Beach Patrol

Organizations deletion[edit]

Barokk Hotel Promenád Győr[edit]

Royal Southampton Yacht Club[edit]

International Quran News Agency[edit]

Christian Connections for International Health[edit]

Network Advertising Initiative[edit]

Nassau County Sports Commission[edit]

Arbitrary break

Arbitrary break 2

Proposed deletions[edit]

Categories[edit]