Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Organizations deletion

FK Šaca

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article only contains own website as a source. Czech article linked through Wikidata doesn't confer notability. Team seems to be defunct and only lists age groups up to under-19 at [1]. C 679 07:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Slovakia. C 679 07:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invest Lithuania

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

Promotional COI mess. Unable to find enough sources for standalone article. Fails WP:SIGCOV 8bit12man (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Znanost.org

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

The external links are not enough to show notability - for example although the British Council is a reliable source the link does not say enough about the subject of this article. Also if it is notable why is there no Croatian article? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, Technology, and Croatia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 17:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 00:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)

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

A serious lack of secondary and independent sourcing that would demonstrate notability. I didn't find the high quality sourcing that would demonstrate WP:NORG as being met, feels somewhat original research-y Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Education, and New York. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Irving literary society was both formative within the early history of such societies, serving as an example to those who were established in subsequent decades, and the Irving was solidly documented in the newspapers and books of the time. We already list 43 references, and while JSTOR notes more, the current count is probably overkill. No, the Irving was not a topic for first-tier national newspapers, like the NYT. But editors who are knowledgeable about early campus societies (Fraternities, sororities, honor societies and literary societies) realize that such blanketing coverage is not likely unless the group becomes notorious for some scandal. Rather, the Irving was covered extensively in its time by the city and campus papers, in biographies, and such mentions were common over subsequent decades. Notability does not diminish over time. This is an unnecessary and unwarranted deletion prod. Jax MN (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable, independent sources offer significant coverage of the organization? Student run publications are neither reliable, nor independent Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Covers.com

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

Notability is not inherited. While the parent company has some coverage, the website does not meet WP:NORG or WP:WEB. The references provided are either brief mentions, coverage of the parent company, or press releases. - The9Man ^Talk 07:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Sports. - The9Man ^Talk 07:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sreekandeshwa Kalashetram art institution

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

Unable to find sources for this to show that it meets WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A previous draftification was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Organizations, and Kerala. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Music. jolielover♥talk 06:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title is perhaps misspelled or mistransliterated because there are literally 0 non-Wikipedia Google-hits for "Sreekandeshwa Kalashetram". The same editor also created the article for the institution's director Kalamandalam Sivadath, but I seriously doubt that he meets WP:GNG and I've moved it to draftspace until sources can be found. Pichpich (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commission on International and Trans-Regional Accreditation

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

Declined prod. This article gets a mere 6 google news hits. This one, this and this are 1 line mentions. This one another small mention. This appears to be a blog. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Middletown Adult Education

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

Article with no sources - seems with only local interest - fails WP:NCORP - has tag for notability since 2014. Asteramellus (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Xplosion

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

Redirect to Women's Football Alliance as I am unable to find enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. All I really found was this mention in a story about a different team. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Women's Football Alliance. i could not find anything either. Rainsage (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, American football, and Iowa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland

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

Declined prod. Nothing in google news. 2 small hits each in google books and scholar. Fails WP:ORG, LibStar (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is coverage in the following articles [2], [3], and [4]. There are some passing mentions in [5], [6], [7]. As a student union this would be a nonprofit, and as a coalition of students it is also education related. The coverage in sourcing includes sources from outside Scotland and is not just local but national so appears to pass WP:NONPROFIT. Note that I did not do archive searches in Scottish/UK newspapers or search in newspapers.com so there may be more materials. 4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional newspaper sources can be found via the Wikipedia Library, such as this article and this article on CHESS's founding in the Herald, and this one in the Scotsman. — LittleDwangs (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PIND Foundation

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

Subject fails the criteria for WP:ORGCRIT, and a cursory search does not reveal anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of WP:ORGDEPTH. All sources falls under WP:ORGTRIV. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free Group (South Tyrol)

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

It doesn't appear to be a real party (although it has a symbol), but a provincial council group composed of a single person. No other members appear to have joined it. The sources that just mention this group are very few (there are a few more sources on its chairman, Andreas Leiter Reber). If it were to structure itself as a real party and participate in elections in the future, then the page could be recreated, but currently it is failing WP:Notability. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The party is represented in the Landtag of South Tyrol. This would be enough for me, but the party has also a website, an organisation and presence in the media. Wikipedia is great as long as it collects infos that readers might find difficult to find in such a consistent way anywhere else. --Checco (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel Systems

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Of the 12 sources, 8 are press releases. SOurces 5 and 6 are pieces written by an employee, Source 8 is dead but appears to be a piece about a non-notable award and SOurce 9 doesn't mention the subject. A search for source turned up databases, primary sources, blogs and UGS. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Canada. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a brochure, and Wikipedia has no room for more advertisements. Sources do not confer notability anyways. MediaKyle (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No valid secondary sourcing to prove notability. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 11:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom's analysis of the sources. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability and I'm unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuk Sul Do

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Only three sources are cited in the article, and those too are from the organization itself. There is no significant coverage. Baqi:) (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and India. Baqi:) (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, South Korea, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per total lack of independent coverage. Svartner (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Given that the sources are primarily primary and do not demonstrate notability, I don't see justification for keeping this article. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Firstly, I'm here to inform that I may have been erroneously identified as the entry creator. I created Kyeok Sul Do under the name Kuk Sul Do by mistake, but the article was moved to a proper name. I think User:2601:282:1900:33C0:BC6A:451:9534:2472 and/or User:Ish00ra created the current incarnation and not me. Also I think an earlier incarnation was made by User:SwordDance108 who tried to revert my edits when I thought Kyeok Sul Do was called Kuk Sul Do. It believe that the IP user/who made the new one could be SwordDance108 -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything but primary sources nor do I see evidence of organizational significance. Papaursa (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails GNG and NMMA notability guidelines, Cassiopeia talk 05:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Britain

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

Fails WP:V and WP:RS: article is outdated, misleading, and based on dead or unverifiable sources. Lacks independent coverage to meet WP:N.

This article should be deleted because it fails core Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:V and WP:RS. Almost all of the information is significantly outdated and misleading, with references that are either dead or do not verify the claims made. As a result, the article does not reflect a neutral or accurate representation of the subject, contrary to WP:NPOV.

Attempts have been made to address these issues through all proper channels: declaring a conflict of interest and editing transparently, submitting edit requests, engaging on the talk page, and even proposing deletion through WP:PROD. However, the fundamental problems remain unresolved. Without reliable, independent, secondary sources providing verifiable and up-to-date coverage, the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements (WP:N).

In its current form, the article promotes misinformation rather than providing encyclopedic value, and this misinformation is actively harmful to the organisation it describes, since the content is inaccurate and misleading to readers. For these reasons, I believe deletion is the most appropriate outcome. RoseOpenBritain (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Europe, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs updating but there is an abundance of reliable, independent sources that could be added, I think WP:BEFORE is needed here. Comment RoseOpenBritain has declared their COI on their talk page but not in this AfD. Orange sticker (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes notability requirements with extensive independent and reliable sources that cover the organisation, particularly for its activity during the main "Brexit" years, so deletion seems inappropriate here. I do however completely understand the points raised by the nominator (who I note has a disclosed COI) about the current state of the page, and will try to update it accordingly using more recent sources that ensure the page's claims are verified and accurate. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information and COI declaration: Thank you for your constructive responses. I should formally declare here that I have a conflict of interest as I work with Open Britain (this is also noted on my user page). To clarify the current issues: Open Britain has changed significantly from its historical role during the Brexit campaign and now operates as a pro-democracy organisation focused on electoral reform https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/voter-id-elections-chaos-new-rules-polling-station https://bylinetimes.com/2024/12/04/keir-starmer-rejects-call-for-fairer-votes-despite-mps-voting-in-favour-of-proportional-representation/. However, the current Wikipedia article contains severely outdated information - of all directors listed, only Mark Kieran remains registered with Companies House, with the rest having resigned. This outdated content is actively harmful to the organisation's current work. The organisation manages the largest APPG in Parliament and will play an essential role when the government announces its upcoming elections bill. Therefore, it is key that members of the public can find accurate and up to date information about Open Britain. I have prepared a fully sourced and current draft (User:RoseOpenBritain/Open Britain Draft) that demonstrates how this topic can be covered accurately with proper sourcing. If deletion is not the preferred outcome, this draft could guide necessary updates to address the verifiability and accuracy concerns I've raised. Given the organisation's current prominent role in electoral reform, having accurate information available is important for public understanding. If dramatic changes are not made to this page, Wikipedia will be platforming misinformation which actively harms the organisation - this is concerning. Thank you for your help so far. ~~~~

RoseOpenBritain (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. While I can sympathize with Rose's desire to control content about her organization, wikipedia is limited in what we can say by the content we have in WP:Reliable sources which for our purposes mean the content found in independent WP:SECONDARYSOURCES. We are also an encyclopedia which means we have an interest in documenting the entire history of an organization and not just its current activities. In looking at the materials being used by Rose in user space, many of them are not independent and are therefore not usable on wikipedia. Others don't entirely verify the proposed text, and there appears to be WP:SYNTH with conclusions which can't be found in any one source. Currently I can't see adopting most of the proposed text or incorporating most of the materials on that page. @RoseOpenBritain: Rather than try and control what wikipedia is writing, I suggest that Open Britain works toward grabbing the attention of independent journalists and academics and try and generate interest in writing on what Open Britain is currently doing and how it has evolved across time. Once independent sources start documenting and publishing material on how Open Britain has changed wikipedia can cover that evolution. By nature, our encyclopedia has delayed coverage of events because we rely on journalists and academics to do their work first. Inevitably we do have systemic bias because of our reliance on external sourcing. That isn't something we can change because of our policies about WP:Verifiability and our strict policies in independent sourcing for writing on WP:Organizations.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Phellowship

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) all current references are either self published group website, Facebook, Reddit or minor mentions in non independent outlets. I was unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the topic may be notable within Phish fan culture but could be merged into the main Phish article or a section on sober fan groups in jam band culture....Without substantial independent coverage a standalone page is not warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thilio (talk • contribs) 22:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Health and fitness, Organizations, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a reference^[1] in a peer-reviewed academic journal, as well as coverage in a media outlet,^[2] and apparently there is a fan-made documentary about the group on Youtube which received some attention here.^[3] There's a podcast^[4] interviewing an organiser too, and the idea also inspired similar groups to form for NFL fans.^[5] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Brillhart, Ross (2023-11-01), "Recovery- and sobriety-support groups in a music community: An ethnographic study of Phish, the Phellowship, and the sensorium of sobriety", Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, vol. 154, Elsevier, doi:10.1016/j.josat.2023.209120, ISSN 2949-8759, retrieved 2025-08-22
^ Waldman, Scott (2025-08-22), "Phellowship a safe place for Phish heads", Times Union, retrieved 2025-08-22
^ Shackleford, Tom (2019-01-30), "New Mini-Documentary Gives Inside Look At The Sober Community Within The Jam Scene [Watch]", L4LM, retrieved 2025-08-22
^ "Episode 60: The Magic of Sobriety with Paige Clem from The Phellowship - Osiris", Osiris, 2023-01-27, retrieved 2025-08-22
^ O'Brien, Andrew (2023-01-03), "Phish Fans Inspire New Sober Support Community At Iconic NFL Stadium [Video]", L4LM, retrieved 2025-08-22

Keep. Passes WP:GNG per the sources identified above. @Cloventt: I hope you will add these to the article.4meter4 (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hantec Financial 1

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

Declined 4 times for notability issues at AfC, then finally rejected with no indication of notability. Author moved to mainspace.

I see no indication this company meets WP:NORG qcne (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. qcne (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author is a paid editor and should never have moved this into the main space past AfC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no indication of passing WP:NCORP paid marketing promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Hong Kong. jolielover♥talk 15:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NCORP and creator needs blocked for the bludgeoning. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, fails NCORP and should be removed. I note there is a related article Hantec Markets which looks like the same company and could be merged, but that article is poorly referenced and still not meet NCORP and probably should also be removed. -- Sargdub (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hantec Group (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I created an article about Hantec Group, the parent company of Hantec Financial and Hantec Markets. The parent company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria through significant coverage in the Economic Daily News [zh], the Hong Kong Economic Journal, Sing Tao Daily, and the South China Morning Post. Cunard (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with this. qcne (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Jala Lions

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

Fails WP:GNG with only two sources that appear primary and one other source that is also primary as the official club website. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, and Palestine. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Will admit I am nom, but it is 7 days since nomination. Re listing to see if a consensus can be reached. It is likely more editors will see it if a Re List happens.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship Thailand

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

Merge. BKFC Thailand ad BKFC UK are pointless. The relevant information of both pages has already been merged into the main article Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship. The events, champions, history. I don't understand why these pages were created in the first place. Both pages are merely the main company hosting events in other countries. It's like we would create a page for UFC UK, or UFC Asia, but will almost no coverage and no events. BKFC UK has had held 8 events and BKFC Thailand has had 5 total events and is now defunct as of 2025! The main page is notable, not the branches.

Both pages lack independent coverage, and cite majoritly primary sources (BKFC.com). Events of from UK are already list inside the main promotion's list of yearly events see: 2022 in Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship#Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship 27: London. There is absolutely no need to have the extra pages except to confuse readers.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 August 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Boxing, Thailand, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is the proposed action? If content from these two articles were merged to Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship, the articles' histories must be retained to preserve attribution. The usual process would be to redirect the pages to the merge target and tag them as {{R from merge}}. This can usually be done with agreement on the article talk pages, without need for AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Content is already merged, champions, events, history. I am open to a redirect to Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship, but I still believe delete is preferable. I don't see how we can justify a standalone page for these events. Lekkha Moun (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the page histories may not be deleted. See the full explanation at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't copied back to main page, content from main page was duplicated into the UK and Thailand. Lekkha Moun (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the text you added in Special:Diff/1306975184 seems to have been copied from the UK article, where it was originally added by User:Ptkday in Special:Diff/1184902907? It's quite minimal, and the attribution could be given in an edit summary, but we should always make sure that the licensing requirements are preserved. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:WRONGFORUM. The nominator did not make a deletion argument. This should have been done through WP:MERGEPROP.4meter4 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[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 redirect‎ to First Vienna FC. History is available if anyone wants to merge sourced information into the target article. RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Vienna FC (women)

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

I can't find any independent coverage of this Austrian women's football squad. All the coverage that comes up (and that's in this article) is from the squad's own website. An IP has on multiple occasions reverted a redirect to First Vienna FC as an AtD, so seeking an AfD consensus for a stable redirect. (And if anyone can find coverage for this subject to pass WP:NSPORT, all the better.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: "I can't find any independent coverage" Really? what is this meinbezirk.at then? You don’t bother to research, you just throw around false accusations. And now you’re trying to rally support for a redirect just because an IP dared to revert your edits. That speaks volumes. 2003:100:3700:BC00:484F:27F9:24C2:2F70 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The MeinBezirk report appears to be composed mostly of Q&A WP:INTERVIEW content with team personnel, which is not considered independent. If you have more, please share it. And I'll echo the warnings below about avoiding personal attacks like you just throw around false accusations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Austria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to IP @2003:100:3700:bc00:a4d3:1e16:c0cf:aaed and @Onel5969, who have engaged on the redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First Vienna FC. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First Vienna FC – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First Vienna FC. No brainer.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First Vienna FC. There needs to be a secondary source regarding the women's team to be mentioned there. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep So the grand plan here is to pretend the women's team doesn't exist by quietly redirecting it to the men's article? That’'s not just lazy, it's embarrassing. We have endless articles about obscure villages with a few dozen people and barely a mention in passing sources, yet somehow a women's football team playing under Austria's oldest club doesn't “deserve” its own page?

And no, it’s not true that there are “no independent sources.” Here’s one right here: MeinBezirk.at, which actually profiles the women’s side. If that’s not enough, match results, league coverage, and local sports reporting are all out there — if you bother to look.

What really surprises me is how quickly people jump to “redirect!” instead of thinking, “maybe we should develop the article?” Isn’t that supposed to be the point of an encyclopedia? And by the way, the topic already has articles in three other language Wikipedias. Nobody there seems to be wringing their hands about “lack of sources.” But sure, let’s make the English version the most censored, because apparently if CNN doesn’t cover the topic, it doesn’t count, as we only care about the American audience!

This is not one editor’s “job” to fix alone — the article exists, the team exists, the sources exist. Pretending otherwise and redirecting to the men’s club is nothing more than sweeping women’s football under the rug. A redirect is simply shameful! 2003:100:3700:BC00:484F:27F9:24C2:2F70 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AFG and WP:NPA and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LakesideMiners: Where exactly did I “personally attack” anyone in my reply? Pointing out flaws in an argument isn’t a personal attack, it’s called debate. If you can’t counter what I wrote, falling back on the tired old tactic of accusations of “personal attack” just to shut someone down is pretty telling. If I had a username, I can only imagine the kind of empty threats that would already be cluttering up my talk page. 2003:100:3700:BC00:484F:27F9:24C2:2F70 (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying that anyone voting to redirect is "shameful" and is "sweeping women's football under the rug". LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LakesideMiners: The act is shameful because we can develop the article not simply redirect it! All can decide by themselves, and their opinions are respected! but claiming that independent coverage does not exist is not acceptable! 2003:100:3700:BC00:484F:27F9:24C2:2F70 (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All I can find are betting sites and the FCs own website. Main article needs rewriting a bit as wellLakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LakesideMiners: Of course! English search results only! Really? read this MeinBezirk.at. We only care about American audience, right?! Go ahead and rewrite the whole article, show us what you got! 2003:100:3700:BC00:484F:27F9:24C2:2F70 (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. That's in German

2. This is the English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia. We do accept sources in other languages, and I don't see where LM asked for specifically English language sources. Also I would watch your language, since you're approaching personal attack territory. If you're going to bludgeon the discussion and attack anyone who disagrees, you're heading for a block. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydoh8: Your reply meant nothing at all, only mumbling! "That's in German" then "We do accept sources in other languages" you contradict yourself in two sentences! Not only American audiences we should care about, also the Aussies! Who are you to threaten me by blocking in the first place?! You write to me to watch my language as if I cursed someone, can you tag any part of my text that includes attacking someone! If not, keep it shut! 2003:100:3700:BC00:484F:27F9:24C2:2F70 (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said English search results only! Really? read this and proceeded to link a German-language source. I also was not threatening to block you (I also don't have the power to block you), I was simply warning you that such behaviour would inevitably lead to one. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydoh8: Because the other user claimed to find only betting related sources, since they tried only English search results, so I add the German ref to show that the topic is covered! MAybe it is too sunny in Australia these days! 2003:100:3700:BC00:484F:27F9:24C2:2F70 (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving a warning on their talk page as a formality. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 12:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also meant to say that the English Wikipedia's target audience is English speakers (not just Americans, or Australians for that matter). Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 12:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aydoh8: Entire articles about historic figures from various regions have been written using only non-English sources. The language should not matter if the topic is well-covered. Since this is an Austrian club, it’s natural that the main references would be in German. The main claim here which is no independent coverage is simply incorrect. 2003:100:3700:BC00:484F:27F9:24C2:2F70 (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your post, @Aydoh8. Are you objecting to their disdain for people wanting English sources, or that they provided a non-English post. Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to First Vienna FC. I searched in German and the only independent source I could locate was this article [8]. The Austrian National Library archives (which include most Austrian newspapers, journals, and magazines) had nothing, and the Die Presse archives were equally barren. I am fairly confident that the Austrian media has largely ignored this football team. The sourcing just doesn't exist to support an article. There is gender bias here. However, it is not coming from wikipedia but the Austrian media and writers who cover sports in that country. We fundamentally can't create articles on topics where there are not enough materials to pass WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORG/ WP:NSPORT. It's of course possible I missed offline materials or sources behind paywalls, and I would be happy to change my vote if another editor has success locating sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2025 (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.

1-2 Special

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeibgeist (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the articles all have by-lines, they are clearly press release driven type pieces. Not much here that would qualify under WP:SIRS.4meter4 (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

16:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian Interdisciplinary Society

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a nomination. See WP:JNN. Explain or withdraw this AfD. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator hasn't formulated a proper deletion rationale. This is an academic society that publishes the Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems journal. Not really seeing a benefit to deleting this.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4@Doczilla Do either of you have good enough sources to show that it is notable? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I have not expressed any opinion about this topic whatsoever. I only pointed out that the nomination was inadequately worded. Like I said, read WP:JNN. At the time when you make the nomination, the onus is on you to explain things in the first place. Posting, "Not notable," and nothing else is vaguely akin to having a prosecutor say, "This guy's guilty, so I rest my case," without producing evidence, interviewing a single witness, or making any case whatsoever but then expecting the defense to prove innocence. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 The article about the journal says it is published by znanost.org Chidgk1 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libertaire-Plage

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

This article was created a few years ago as a stub, without much information and citing a further reading drawn from the French Wikipedia. None of the sources in the further reading appear to have given significant coverage of the camp. Renaud Violet said that the existence of the camp was announced in Régénération, as a footnote to discussion of Faure's La Ruche, and that "it seems that this holiday camp was not a success, as we hear no more about it." Céline Beaudet doesn't appear to mention the camp at all. Michel Antony mentions it in passing as an anarchist camp. The French Wikipedia article leaves little to be desired either, as it's mostly cobbled together from individual biographies of people tangentially affiliated with the camp. I also looked it up on Google Scholar and found no results.[9]

As there is no significant coverage of this subject in reliable sources, and as the one source that does give it any detail says it was short-lived and there's not much known about it, I'm nominating this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Grnrchst (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge mention and image to Albert Libertad, its founder. Alternatively, anarchism in France per [10]. Not sure about this current article title but it did indeed exist as "Le Rayon de soleil" (and "La Nature pour tous") in Châtelaillon. There are a number of sources via Google Books that mention the vacation spot in passing in relation to Libertad, hence why it should redirect there as an alternative to deletion. There might be more in non-English works about Libertad but will leave that for another search. Beaudet discusses the topic in pp. 57–59. czar 03:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more feedback on czar's ideas.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 15:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St Benedict Patron of Europe Association

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

Not seeing any standalone notability for this organization per WP:NORG. References are to its own website ([11], [12]), WP:PRIMARYSOURCE documents from the Vatican ([13], [14], [15]), and official Catholic Church directory listings). I didn't find any other qualifying independent WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGCRIT in my BEFORE search. Open to a merger of encyclopedic content to another page but not sure where the content would be WP:DUE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Italy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick search found no additional material on this organization. If the subject passed NORG or GNG, it would typically have coverage in independent Catholic media, but that is absent here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that French Catholic media is mostly paywalled. For example, we can see from this post[16] that Cardinal Sarah's greeting to the group in 2017 was published by L'Homme nouveau, but they don't have an accessible online archive. There are also some references to the French name of the group in Google books, but they're mostly all still in copyright and not accessible. Jahaza (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A weak vote from me as a new-ish editor, but with no COI, I'm not Roman Catholic. This association is a French-Italian-Polish organisation, judging from the board of directors, and in French there is a lot of additional sources. I have added 2 French sources, one from the Dicastery for Laity, the other from Radio chrétienne francophone [fr] - and I could have added more. The Dicastery is (yet) another Curia department, so arguably still WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, but it is a mass participation body and I would say high profile, and operates under its own steam. That first link also has a lot of suitable extra material to improve the article in question here, which I / anyone can update if the consensus is to retain. The RCF link - that is an independent radio station, within a pro-Christian mindset. It is part funded by some Catholic stakeholders. The link is of an radio interview with the French president of the Association, some extracts are on the web page, more in the embedded media. There isn't much more there to support the article, but what I thought was pertinent was that when the radio station wanted to talk about St. Benedict and Europe, this was the person to whom they turned. She then went on to bash the late French President Chirac for apparently trying to downplay the Christian heritage of modern Europe, I have no idea about that, but it does indicate that Mme. Chapon had a particular message to push out, connected with her job with the Association. But yes, this Wiki article isn't a good one, it is poorly written, badly sourced, can be improved. I think traditional Wiki sourcing isn't picking this up too well since it operates in multiple languages, mostly not English, and uses multiple translations of the Association's name, rather than sticking to one version. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The French link to the Dicastery for Laity is just the French version of the English directory listing already in the article and discussed in my nomination. The RCF content is an interview with the CEO about Saint Benedict, not WP:SIGCOV of the association, and it's not independent coverage at any rate since it's an WP:INTERVIEW. I don't see how either of these sources gets us any closer to WP:NORG here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was perhaps not clear about was that on the RCF web page, not the interview, the RCF journalist states - in summary - that after St. Benedict was awarded the title, some clerics wanted to respond to the proclamation by creating the association. So this is a statement on RCF's page and I take that as a Secondary source (WP:SECONDARY), separate and independent of the WP:MAINSOURCE. In addition there is a bit of NORG by dint of what the Association's president was doing, in a public forum, and why she said it - I accept it's not direct to the article. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The passage you describe is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not SIGCOV of the organization. It shows it exists but not much more. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ASBPE is an international association of the faithful and there is only a very limited number of them, all registered by Vatican, which makes it notable. (Terot (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)) — Note to closing admin: Terot (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DClemens1971 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)--Jahaza (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the Wikipedia policy/guideline that says Vatican-registered associations of the faithful are automatically notable? I am unfamiliar with this supposed presumption of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect to Association of the Christian faithful section "Examples". I don't think it is notable enough for a separate article but it seems possible someone searches Wikipedia for information on it. Rolluik (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are too many associations mentioned, a list could probably exist. Rolluik (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list, here: Directory of International Associations of the Faithful. (Terot (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you, I didn't know. Rolluik (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Fram is also good. Rolluik (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more feedback on possible merge/redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Directory of International Associations of the Faithful, lacks notability. Fram (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smiling Mind

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

Creating nomination page per talk request, [17]. I've done my own WP:BEFORE, and I concur that it is not notable. Only articles reviewing this app/organization seem to be blogs, non-reliable and full of promotional language, as well as the Apple Appstore entries and their own website. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Psychology, Software, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No conflict of interest. The application offers a diverse range of free meditations and is no different from many paid services of the same kind; it’s a venture worth documenting. Iuliusnanus (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Roxy the dog 14:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG, This appears to be a WP:UPE 200.46.55.51 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Theological Seminary, Manakala

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

Fails WP:ORG and no presence of independent sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator.Thilsebatti (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any independent sources. Bearian (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poor to unreliable sources. Fails GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. This independent academic book published by Brill Publishers describes the school as "one of the premier theological education institutions in India" on page 100. There's also coverage in this book, published by Edinburgh University Press, and in this journal, and [this book. There's a bunch more in google books and google scholar.4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, can you elaborate on how this passes SIGCOV? The first book you linked appears to have one page of coverage (on p. 180). Ross-2019 p. 151–152 has one paragraph. George-2013 is available from WP:TWL, and has one paragraph on p. S-188. I did not search books or scholar myself, but can you list two or three sources that have book or chapter-length coverage, or a journal article in which it is the main subject? From what I can see so far, there isn't significant coverage in even one independent source. Mathglot (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. In this case we have encyclopedic claims about the institution in reliable source. If we have independent sources saying this is a significant school, even if it is not lengthy, those claims to my mind are strong evidence of notability. It's not the length here of the text but the actual statements about the school indicating this is an encyclopedic topic. One of the sources states it was the first Pentecostal seminary to gain university accreditation in India, and the first to offer master and doctoral level degrees, and for that reason, a large percentage of Pentecostal academics in Christian theology in India are graduates of the school. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to withdraw this nomination based on new findings by 4meter4 as per WP:HEY . However since there is already two deletion votes, I'm leaving the closure upto the admins or any other editors in good standing. Thanks. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified by 4meter4 which together show that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4's sourcing. This will need an admin closure, despite the nom being convinced, as the two delete's have not revised their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to take back my comment. Zuck28 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I struck it for you. See the Help:Cheatsheet on how to strike comments. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist League (Nepal)

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

Uncited for years. Searches turned up zero in-depth references from independent, reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redir to Nepal Red Communist Party. --Soman (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No mention of this organization at Nepal Red Communist Party.4meter4 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide whether or not to Redirect this article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nepal Red Communist Party, not independently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ROSA (organisation)

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

ROSA International is an "international", with demonstrable sections in multiple countries. This article for ROSA is currently more focused on the activities of those associated with the organisation in Ireland rather than the international as a whole. Currently there is a subsection for ROSA as an international on International Socialist Alternative (ISA) as that is the organisation that founded ROSA and its National Sections (such as Socialist Party Ireland) were lead elements within it. However there have been disaffiliations from ISA since then, including the Socialist Party Ireland) leaving the nature of ROSA unclear. Their own social media still suggests they're still affiliated[18] so believe that until we have reliable sources otherwise, this article should be either:

Merged into ISA due to the existing subsection.
Moved to clarify it is only referring to the Irish section (i.e. ROSA (Irish Section)).

Given the limited RS on the subject I would prefer merging to ISA as that would alleviate this issue as there are sources about ROSA activities outside of Ireland on the ISA article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Ireland. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is that the "Irish section" of ROSA is notable (clear coverage in national news sources) whereas the "international" section is likely not. The "solution" is not deletion. Deleting an article about an organisation because one part of it is much more well-known than the rest doesn't make any sense. At most, renaming (although I don't know, I'm convinced of that) is considerable. The status quo, with some tweaks, is not unreasonable. CeltBrowne (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the initial proposal. The suggestion is to merge, not delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

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

Simply put, there seems to be no real accessible WP:RS that reach our WP:SIGCOV requirements. There well may be sufficient sourcing that can shake out over a week for AfD, but I can't seem to find it yet for the standards on English Wikipedia. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are many additional references in the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedias at ru:Российская академия естественных наук https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA This appears to be a national academy akin to the Royal Society, Royal Society of Canada or National Academy of Sciences in the United States. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian equivalent of those societies is the Russian Academy of Sciences, which is not affiliated with the subject of this article. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gree with you, we should keep this page. This is RANS, not RAS.
By 2010, RANS had 12 members who had been awarded the Nobel Prize, and nearly 200 members who were prominent scientists of the Russian Federation and at the same time members of other academies Solyut (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV, so fails the test of notability. - UtherSRG {{strikethrough|(talk) 05:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is emotional and not neutral.
I do not agree with you, we should keep this page. This is RANS, not RAS.
By 2010, RANS had 12 members who had been awarded the Nobel Prize, and nearly 200 members who were prominent scientists of the Russian Federation and at the same time members of other academies Solyut (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is RANS, not RAS. By 2010, RANS had 12 members who had been awarded the Nobel Prize, and nearly 200 members who were prominent scientists of the Russian Federation and at the same time members of other academies.
This topic fully satisfies the criteria for notability, and is currently written in 6 languages. Solyut (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is RANS, not RAS. By 2010, RANS had 12 members who had been awarded the Nobel Prize, and nearly 200 members who were prominent scientists of the Russian Federation and at the same time members of other academies.

This topic fully satisfies the criteria for notability, and is currently written in 6 languages.

Solyut (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC) — Solyut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Who are these Nobel laureates? It looks like RAS had those, not RANS. Metallurgist (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs clean-up of its foreign-language references, which are allowed under WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. There is a citation template available for this purpose: Template:Cite web#Foreign language and translated title. I don't see the need to delete an organization with such a prominent membership. 5Q5|^✉ 13:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've searched and cannot "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."just "x is a member". Willing to be convinced otherwise if sources are found. Membershsip isn't a criteria for notability so far as I know. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They actually became infamous and got some coverage for accepting some pseudoscientists. When I am back from holidays, if the article is still there, I can search, one would need Russian sources. If it gets gone in the meanwhile, so be it. Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic is fully satisfies the criteria for notability, and is currently written in 6 languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreev8 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. There is no reason to delete a topic with such a high level of notoriety. The RANS subject is completely different from RAS, which is also a prestigious scientific organization, a non-governmental organization, dedicated to society, and oriented towards non-profit. Obviously, many countries know about it, its members come from 51 countries. I affirm that it deserves a place on Wikipedia, this is truly fair, just, and neutral.

~~Please read and learn more. We spend too much time discussing something that should not be done. https://www.twirpx.com/file/4436084/~~
Keep. Keep, offcourse, see their site here: https://raen.info/
~~They have their own science journal: https://raenjournal.ru/ and https://raen.info/publisher/vestnik~~

Important information: The Academy was accredited by the United Nations on January 17, 1995, and in July 2002, RANS was granted the status of a non-governmental organization with the UN – NGO (Non-governmental organization) in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. See here: https://raen.info/academy/status.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmute (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 August 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Here are some WP:GTEST English-language sources I found for any editor to add to the article: FAO.org: RANS profile / Bahrain News Agency: Article title: HM King receives Russian Academy of Natural Sciences' President / Bangalore Mirror: Quote: RANS is one of the biggest such academies comprising scientists and is considered second only to the US National Academy of Sciences / Azerbaijan Institute of Botany: Quote: The international environmental award Ecoworld is the successor to the national award “Ecomir”, established in 2003 by the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and awarded for achievements in the field of environmental protection. In 2017, it acquired an international status. This year the award brought together 200 projects from 35 regions of Russia and 20 countries of the world. (There are likely additional potential references out there but I stopped looking. Pravda is blocked as a source. I'd also like to note that RANS has its own Category:Russian Academy of Natural Sciences). / WP:NORUSH, WP:NOTIMELIMIT 5Q5|^✉ 13:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be my imagination but I think I see some self-publicity in some of those sources. RANS gives someone a medal and thus gets publicity. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Michaelmute, Andreev8, and Solyut are Confirmed sock puppets of Нгуен Ван Минь. I left the first vote by this group of editors, made by Solyut, unstruck. They all appear to be using the same PC, but I guess it's possible they're meat puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm in a similar position as Doug Weller. A source saying X is a member is trivial coverage and isn't conferring notability, and the topic seems sparse for in-depth coverage. I'm just not seeing anything WP:PAG-wise in the keep !votes that justifies keeping the article either. If there really is a WP:NFRINGE angle mentioned above, that could be explored, but the little bit I picked up on didn't really seem to be something that would clearly confer notability either. KoA (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The socking throws me a bit off and there does not seem to be much for this.Metallurgist (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 10:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not finding (translated) sources that demonstrate notability. Given the state of Russian media I'm not hopeful that reliable sources can be found. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Policy Research Institute

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG - ff the three references, one is a broken link to a UPenn global list of think tanks, one is an e-paper article on their engagement of a US lobbying firm, and thhe other is to a copy of one of the subject's own reports. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 22:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have repaired link syntax in the nomination so that {{subst:afd2}} can actually function. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Clicked on and checked all the references at the article. They seem to work fine. Apparently WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ fixed them after this nomination...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only repaired this nomination page itself; I have never edited the article or its references. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I should have taken the time to figure out exactly what was done at the article previously. Normally I try to do that and this time I missed it. Anyway, I have now added 2 more newspaper references to help improve the article....Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some sources to support. There could be more improvements to the page.*DP (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Here are some reliable independent sources from google scholar and google books with WP:SIGCOV: [19], [20], [21], [22], These added to the sources already present in the article are enough to pass our notability guidelines of nonprofit organizations.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Hall of Fame

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

Cannot find any decent in-depth coverage. Anyone can start a vanity award. There is no money or any real kudois attached to this award. And this article has quickly led to lots of other articles being spammed with links to this so-called award. Edwardx (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think it is fair to call this a "vanity award" or "so-called award" without proof. Most of the recipients are notable, as can be seen from the column of mostly blue links to the names of recipients. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Eastmain. That some of the recipients are notable counts for nothing, as no one has to give their permission to be given an award from anyone else. YouTube is not a suitable ref, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Edwardx (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Arts, Awards, Organizations, Science, Sports, Asia, United States of America, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't seen in-depth secondary coverage either that would satisfy WP:GNG, and nothing really independent beyond things like press releases or articles focusing on the awardees. The mention of awardees having their own BLP pages isn't relevant here and would run against WP:INHERIT. We don't chain notability of one page to the notability of another. This is a notability discussion for the WP:NORG, not those other pages. Coverage of the group itself appears to be pretty trivial rather than substantial too. KoA (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some coverage in digitised newspapers, and in news stories found through a google search (including in news media in Asian countries). References could certainly be added for the inductees. Some of the sources also have more information about the Hall of Fame and the Robert Chinn Foundation, which could also be added to the article. According to the sources, it is a non-profit charity, and does provide support to various beneficiaries. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, RebeccaGreen. You say that there are sources, but have not added any here or to the article itself. WP:ORG sets a higher bar for this sort of article than for most other article types. Edwardx (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Focus (Slovenian political party)

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

It does not currently meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG and it is too new to demonstrate sustained notability - The9Man ^Talk 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Slovenia. - The9Man ^Talk 07:47, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As far as I have been able to research, the party is significantly covered by multiple English-language sources—including the English versions of RTVSLO, The Slovenia Times and Slovenian Press Agency—from November 2024 ([23]), January 2025 ([24] [25] [26] [27] [28]) and April 2025 ([29]). It has also routinely appeared in some opinion polls since November 2024 until now. Plus, its leader and founder is the current president of the upper house of the Slovenian parliament.

Granted, the sources, while can be argued to be reliable, independent and secondary, are Slovenian-based (even if in English). It also gets covered in China-CEE ([30]), but together with other new Slovenian parties (and I am not sure about the nature of the source). And the party's results in opinion polls are not impressive. This is why my keep is "weak", but I think the party passes the notability threshold, even if barely. Impru20^talk 20:21, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or probably draftify as TOOSOON. The only SIGCOV I actually see is from its founding January, and I've searched Slovenian sources. The April English source is clearly a mere mention. I don't think this is ripe yet. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

06:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CANDU Owners Group

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

WP:NCORP, couldn't find anything on them. Paradoctor (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to merge, see below.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cannot find enough secondary sources. GenuineArt (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising supported only by primary sources. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect- to CANDU reactor I agree most are primary sources, closest I found from Google new would be this , which does somehow tell the history of the groups involvement among other related parties in the Nuclear power field.Lorraine Crane (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is further support or disagreement with the possibility of a Merge or Redirection as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to merge per Lorraine Crane. Not enough for notability, but Bull. At. Sci. is a solid source. Paradoctor (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything @Paradoctor? I see 391 hits in ProQuest for ""CANDU Owners group" and another 165 in Wikipedia Library - some of them academic journals. Can you tell me more about your BEFORE? I'm curious where @GenuineArt, @Mean as custard, and @Lorraine Crane checked as well - before I start delving through over 500 references! Nfitz (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Repeated my usual sweep, and now I got results that at least mention them. The only explanation I have that my original query had a typo or something. 🤷 From what I see, though, finding the nuggets among the dross is going to require some digging, it mostly mentions in the context of reactor-related topics. Paradoctor (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure @Paradoctor what one would expect other than reactor-related topics. A CANDU is a type of reactor - somewhat unique in it's usage of heavy water and unenriched uranium. This would be a group of organisations that have this type of reactor. Perhaps I'm missing something in your comment? Nfitz (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ping me. I'm watching, obviously.

Sources on the reactor type, but not the group. Employ, not define. You'll see that very quickly for yourself when you look at the sources. Paradoctor (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. I guess I've some digging to do! Please do ping me though - I'm certainly not watching very closely (not sure why it's obvious who would and wouldn't be watching). Nfitz (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my nomination. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never watched any of mine, other than casually. Nfitz (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: 😲 Paradoctor (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think the nominator should have much involvement afterwards - unless there's a specific question. It's a process, not a campaign. Though I rarely nominate anything that is completely non-contentious. Though I don't have anything on my watchlist TBH - it's too annoying. Nfitz (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: How do you learn from your errors if not by watching them happen? How do share what you've learned if not by getting involved?

"non-contentious" You need some philosophy in your life, friend! ^_^ Paradoctor (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants input, they'll do the polite thing and ping me! Nfitz (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: I did. Pro tip: add "ping me!" to your sig. Takes the guessing out of it. Paradoctor (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in sigs. Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but then you have no standing to call others impolite for not knowing your idiosyncratic preferences. Paradoctor (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one has called anyone else impolite. However with that last comment you have indeed become unpolite and crossed over into both failing to AGF and a personal attack. That this is being done about such an unrelated and minor issue baffles me. Can I suggest that you just stop this absurd discussion, and try and appreciate that someone pinging you isn't impolite! Nfitz (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem, I am welcome to possible discoveries of more SIGCOV sources mainly about the "group" and not the Reactor Tech itself to defend the pages notability. Do provide here some samples and we can recheck these together.

Cheers! Lorraine Crane (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/ Redirect- to CANDU reactor.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some references. Nfitz (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is less of a consensus now than there was last week. Can any new references be assessed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found in-depth coverage of the "nonprofit" group that promotes the CANDU reactors of its members. Sources are primary or shallow mentions about/comments from Conexus. Against merging as I do not see how including info about an industry group will add to info about the CANDU reactor. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respecting Aboriginal Values & Environmental Needs

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

This is basically an essay about justifying what the organization does (with very little sourcing) but does not indicate how the organization itself notable per WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The secondary sources cited do not talk significantly about the organization, if they mention it at all. ... discospinster _talk 16:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Canada. ... discospinster _talk 16:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything that meets WP:SIRS. I found a lot of trivial mentions, routine event announcements, and a few non-independent sources; it is difficult to sift through them all. It doesn't help that this article has been written by apparent WP:COI editors. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organizations has extensive news coverage over time and appears in several books. The article needing clean up and better citation isn't cause for deletion. Yuchitown (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yuchitown Can you show us some sources that meet the criteria in WP:SIRS? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see you added sources to the article. I will review them shortly. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably add some over time. What I added was just to explain the basic structure of the organization. Yuchitown (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The charityintelligence.ca source looks like it might satisfy WP:SIRS, but the others do not. Unfortunately, this is only one source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I wrote, what I added was just to explain the basic structure of the organization. There's mentions in that are behind paywalls, but the fact that I can't access them doesn't prevent other editors from doing so. Yuchitown (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been around for 15 years. There haven't been any reliable sources added that significantly discuss the organization in all that time. Just explaining the structure of the organization is not sufficient. ... discospinster _talk 16:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their class is notable and the subject of independent coverage. I've improved the article and culled much of the unnecessary details. There are still more sources that can be drawn upon. Yuchitown (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- skimmed thru the citations a bit, and does show potential for it being standalone article. If the article still lacks SIGCOV citations not opposed to draftify as an ATD to give the authors more time to improve the article.Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (adding on to my previous !vote): I've cleaned up the article a bit but I still don't see notability. Charityintelligence probably satisfies WP:SIRS. The Narwhal mainly quotes/paraphrases from the org's founder and doesn't have much independent coverage otherwise. rabble.ca only has a listicle entry which isn't really significant coverage. The Tyee has only a course announcement and doesn't really discuss the organization itself. The other sources are obviously non-independent or only contain trivial mentions. So, there's one source that cleanly satisfies WP:SIRS and three more with bits of coverage. I don't think that's enough.

If there are more sources that could be added, even if paywalled, I would like to see them instead of relying on assertions that they exist. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has improved during the AfD, including added sources. Good idea to give this another week before we decide.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Contents

Organizations deletion

FK Šaca

Invest Lithuania

Znanost.org

Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)

Covers.com

Sreekandeshwa Kalashetram art institution

Commission on International and Trans-Regional Accreditation

Middletown Adult Education

Iowa Xplosion

Coalition of Higher Education Students in Scotland

PIND Foundation

Free Group (South Tyrol)

Squirrel Systems

Kuk Sul Do

Open Britain

The Phellowship

Hantec Financial 1

Beit Jala Lions

Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship Thailand

First Vienna FC (women)

1-2 Special

Croatian Interdisciplinary Society

Libertaire-Plage

St Benedict Patron of Europe Association

Smiling Mind

Faith Theological Seminary, Manakala

Communist League (Nepal)

ROSA (organisation)

Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

Islamabad Policy Research Institute

Asian Hall of Fame

Focus (Slovenian political party)

CANDU Owners Group

Respecting Aboriginal Values & Environmental Needs

Proposed deletions

Categories