Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International SOS (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International SOS

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Pridemanty (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[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]
Speedy Keep. The nominator has not provided any justification beyond a bare statement that it fails NORG. There are many independent media citations on the page; even though much of this may be earned media it reflects how prominent they are in the industry. I've added one more, a journal article.
Note that the first deletion, described by the nominator as having been closed by a sock, was in 2007, at at time when there were just FOUR references, all primary. The article is substantially expanded. Should be irrelevant for this AfD. Oblivy (talk) 03:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question to nominator: There have been 2 AFDs for this article prior to this one. The first one (the sockpuppet one) was closed in 2007, however as far as I can tell the sockpuppet-ing only started a year later and the user was only blocked in 2009. The other AFD, despite there's only 3 participants, still ended in a keep. I apologize for my ignorance, but can I ask how does the sockpuppet-ing impact this discussion in any way? S5A-0043^Talk 01:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is bad enough that I wouldn't dismiss the nominator. The newspaper archive shows enough mentions that I wouldn't want to delete outright as well. It appears to be a large emergency assistance service: [1], [2] IgelRM (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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