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

America Party

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

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper to report everything that happens with Musk and Trump. Wait until he actually takes steps to create anything. Anyone can say they want to create a new party. And besides, he's already expressed "regret" over his criticisms of Trump. Wowzers122 (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no SIGCOV and no actual entity that exists yet. We are not here to document every tweet of these people. --hroest 20:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ephemeral trivia. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps see if this info fits well in the article about Musk, although if there are no further developments, then it is probably trivial. Ike9898 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another pipe dream from someone with a lot of things that remain exactly that. Nathannah • 📮 22:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AC Horatiana Venosa ASD

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

Football club that fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, resided low in the pyramid, no notability or references indicated. Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could possible be able to pass GNG, however I don't see it. I don't know Italian or how to search for sources. On what's available it's a delete unless someone can provide the sources to change my mind. Regards. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the name is "Oraziana Venosa" if it helps looking for sources. I could only find some local coverage about the club closing and nothing more [1][2]. Not enough WP:SIGCOV Broc (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror Brigade

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

On 14MAY2025, I PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Plainly fails WP:SIGCOV, as the MEMRI coverage only refers to it as one among many Syrian Turkmen Brigades, The New York Times only devotes a single sentence to remarking on the trend of naming after Ottoman rulers, and Bulbajer's guide on Google Docs is not a reliable source. The Institute for the Study of War is a generally reputable source, but its brief coverage is only cited to X/Twitter posts. Searches for additional sources did not yield significant coverage to merit an article separate from Syrian Turkmen Brigades and Sultan Murad Division." A. B. chose to redirect to Sultan Murad Division as a reasonable alternative to deletion and Durranistan changed the redirect to Syrian Turkmen Brigades, as this brigade is part of that grouping but left the Sultan Murad Division nine years ago. Today, article creator Farcazo reverted the change to a redirect, simply remarking "It's the thought of one user, not all of Wikipedia." in the edit summary. I support the latter redirect target, so per WP:ATD-R, I am proposing that here. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:ViridianPenguin above. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CI Capital Partners

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

Per WP:SERIESA; this article doesn't include anything that makes the company notable, and a search also turns up nothing but announcements and mentions in relation to other companies. FalconK (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and New York. FalconK (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per FalconK - also, we are not LinkedIn or Forbes. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanatan Wisdom Foundation

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

Brand-new organisation lauded in over-the-top "articles" which seem to be typical paid-for advertisements published as genuine articles. "And at the centre of it all stands Sonic Philosophy: not just an idea, but a movement in the making." is how one article states it, while another concludes "In a world exhausted by noise, Svaryam offers resonance. In a culture addicted to stimulation, it introduces stillness. And in an age of fragmentation, it reclaims unity—through vibration, through consciousness, and through the timeless power of sacred sound." An article like this one would need WP:MEDRS, not this. Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Science, Medicine, and India. Fram (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This organization meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The Sanatan Wisdom Foundation has received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent national Indian news outlets. These are not just small mentions but detailed reports about the foundation's work and impact.
For example:
- The Financial Express: This is a major national business newspaper. Their article, "Sanatan Wisdom: India's new model for the global mental health crisis," gives in-depth details about the foundation's scientific approach, its main projects (like NYRI, Svaryam, and Naad Yagya), and how it aligns with big goals like UN SDG-3 and the AYUSH mission. This shows serious, detailed coverage.
- The Hans India, Daily Excelsior, Lokmat Times: These national papers have covered NYRI's scientific studies on Vedic sound, including its partnerships with top institutions like AIIMS and IIT. This highlights the foundation's notable research.
- The Pioneer: This national newspaper reported on the "Global Sonic Experiment" linked to Naad Yagya, showing a notable event organized by the foundation.
- Ahmedabad Mirror: Provides additional independent reporting on its founding and goals.
While the foundation was established recently, the immediate and widespread national media attention it has received, detailing its unique approach to mental health, demonstrates its notability. It's not just an organization of a single person; it's a foundation with verifiable initiatives and scientific collaborations that have been reported on significantly by various independent news organizations.

Thank you for your time and review.

Svaryam (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the creator of this article has already stated (wrt to another article, declined repeatedly at AfC) that they have a COI with the founder of the company. Fram (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding COI disclosure: I acknowledge Fram's comment. I confirm that I have a professional relationship with the founder of Sanatan Wisdom Foundation. I understand Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy and have made every effort to ensure this article is written from a neutral point of view, relying exclusively on independent, reliable, and secondary sources. I am committed to following all Wikipedia guidelines and will continue to make revisions as needed to meet community standards. My intention is to contribute factual, verifiable information, and I apologize if my previous actions regarding other articles caused any confusion. Svaryam (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further response: Article has been thoroughly revised for neutrality and conciseness. I have implemented all suggestions to remove promotional language and ensure the tone is strictly factual. The article now exclusively focuses on verifiable facts, supported by reliable and independent national media coverage. I believe these revisions fully address the concerns regarding promotional tone and content. Svaryam (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources were published around the time between April and June this year with a few being published at the end of May and all are very similar and promotional in tone ("groundbreaking", "pioneering", their mission and vision, etc.). None have a named author which suggests they are regurgitated press releases/ WP:NEWSORGINDIA. S0091 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to concerns about source independence, timing, and authorship (S0091): I appreciate the detailed scrutiny of the sources. I acknowledge that several articles were published within a concentrated period and some may employ descriptive language, reflecting a journalistic style that can be enthusiastic when covering new initiatives. However, these factors do not automatically negate the independence or reliability of the publications themselves.
The sources cited (The Financial Express, The Hans India, The Pioneer, Daily Excelsior, Lokmat Times, Ahmedabad Mirror, News18 Hindi) are prominent and editorially independent news organizations in India. Their decision to publish articles, even without a named author, implies editorial vetting and a determination of newsworthiness by an established media outlet. These are not obscure or unverified blogs but mainstream news entities with a public reputation to uphold.

While the absence of named authors on specific pieces can be a concern for in-depth analysis, it is a common practice in certain types of news reporting, particularly for organizational announcements or features on emerging entities, and does not inherently make the entire publication unreliable or indicate a "planted" advertisement. The key information (e.g., collaborations with AIIMS/IIT, the development of specific platforms like Svaryam, and documented events like the Naad Yagya in Ujjain) represents verifiable activities reported by multiple distinct outlets.

The article on Wikipedia has been meticulously crafted to extract only factual, verifiable information from these sources, explicitly avoiding any "puff piece" language or promotional tone. The focus remains on what the organization does and what has been reported about it, rather than its stated mission or vision in a promotional sense. I urge reviewers to consider the overall reputation and editorial independence of the publishing news organizations in India when assessing these sources for notability.
Svaryam (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a Tribune article published May 28th, which is not cited in the article but has the disclaimer "ADVERTORIAL DISCLAIMER: The above press release has been provided by PNN. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same" and all the others published around the same time pretty much say the same things. The AhmedabadMirror, which is cited, is marked as a "Special" which is code for press release as noted at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Response to concerns about source independence, timing, and authorship (S0091): I appreciate the detailed scrutiny of the sources. Regarding the Tribune article mentioned, I want to clarify that **this specific article is not cited as a source in the Wikipedia page for Sanatan Wisdom Foundation.** My reliance is solely on the sources explicitly cited within the article. Concerning the Ahmedabad Mirror reference, I have re-examined the cited article from Ahmedabad Mirror to check for the "Special" marking. **Upon re-examination, I found that the article is indeed categorized under 'Others Specials', and its style, similar to syndicated news wire content (e.g., beginning with 'New Delhi [India], May 12:'), aligns with common formats for press releases.** Recognizing that such content may not fully meet Wikipedia's criteria for independent, secondary sources for notability, **I have promptly removed this specific Ahmedabad Mirror source from the Wikipedia article.** I acknowledge that several articles were published within a concentrated period and some may employ descriptive language. However, the remaining sources I have cited (e.g., Financial Express, The Hans India, The Pioneer, Daily Excelsior, Lokmat Times, News18 Hindi, and the recently noted Punjab Kesari article updated by Diksha Raghuwanshi) are prominent and editorially independent news organizations in India. Their decision to publish articles, even if not always by a named journalist (though some now explicitly show editorial attribution), implies editorial vetting and a determination of newsworthiness by an established media outlet. These are mainstream news entities with a public reputation to uphold. The key information (e.g., collaborations with AIIMS/IIT, the development of specific platforms like Svaryam, and documented events like the Naad Yagya in Ujjain) represents verifiable activities reported by multiple distinct outlets. The Wikipedia article itself has been meticulously crafted to extract only factual, verifiable information from these sources, explicitly avoiding any "puff piece" language or promotional tone. I reaffirm my commitment to adhering to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and neutral point of view, and I urge reviewers to assess the overall independence and reputation of the publishing news organizations in India when evaluating the sources. Svaryam (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svaryam please read WP:BLUDGEON. Repeating your arguments is not helpful, especially the WP:WALLSOFTEXT. Other editors will review and opine. S0091 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledgement: Understood. I will refrain from further comments and allow other editors to review and opine. Thank you for the clarification.

Svaryam (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are neither a soapbox, nor a free web host. Pages like this are fodder for the wealthiest man in the World, newly made up with his BFF, to take away our charity status. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuy

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a G4, but it doesn't appear that the new information meets N:ORG either, so bringing it here for further discussion. Star Mississippi 00:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Internet, and Kuwait. Star Mississippi 00:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good reliable coverage in The Free Press Journal, Al Rai (Kuwaiti newspaper) and some other. I see here that local big newspapers give more in-depths coverage beyond trivial reporting. --Salamandra-12 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy

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

Declined prod. Provided sources are not independent like philosophy publications or the university connected with it. Nothing in google books, 1 hit in google scholar, limited google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, United States of America, and Illinois. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to be WP:SIGCOV, all of the mentions in news articles seem to be trivial/passing mentions Psychastes (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually get a number of hits in Google Books for this organization describing its role in the Continental reception and Continental/Analytic debates in the US. Jahaza (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in an interlibrary loan request for The Reception of Husserlian Phenomenology in North America (2019), ed. Michela Beatrice Ferri ISBN 9783319991832, which has a chapter "The Society of Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy" (pp. 267-282) by Anthony Steinbock. Jahaza (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a journal article doi:10.5325/jspecphil.26.2.0102. Jahaza (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAHA Commission

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

It's unclear how this commission is independently notable of the main subject, that being the Make America Healthy Again campaign. This article barely gives any information about the commission, other than its establishment and a report published by it. The establishment of the commission isn't even mentioned on the main MAHA article, so it can be argued that this article existing as a separate (short stub-length) entity is detracting information from readers who want to learn about the subject. None of the cited sources provide significant coverage of the commission itself, aside from wider coverage of the MAHA campaign.

As the notability of an organisation is not inherited from the main subject, I think this article should be deleted and its relevant contents merged into the main article on the MAHA campaign. Grnrchst (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Grnrchst (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with MAHA report in either direction. Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Make America Healthy Again per nom, page is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. MAHA report should probably be merged as well. मल्ल (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the report should probably be merged into the main article too. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Economic Liberties Project

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. The article does not establish significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most references are either primary (press releases, staff bios) or routine mentions. Notability appears to stem from affiliations rather than substantial impact or coverage. Garypetersthefourth (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 9 June 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 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. McCabe (2020) passes WP:SIRS as a detailed, independent discussion of the organization's founding and purposes in The New York Times. While the article is brief and lacking in sources, I can find a handful of reliable secondary sources interviewing the organization's representatives and treating them as reliable^[1]^[2] or even running op-eds from the organization's officials (who are also themselves notable people we have articles on)^[3]^[4] Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Filbrandt, John; Leins, David (2025-02-06). "What are tariffs? And how could they affect consumers?". The Metro. Detroit Public Radio. Archived from the original on 2025-02-09.
^ Scola, Nancy (2023-04-21). "Washington's angriest progressive is winning over conservatives – and baffling old allies". Politico. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21.
^ McGee, William J. (2023-01-13). "It's time to finally fix air travel". Opinion. The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-01-13.
^ Stoller, Matt (2023-07-28). "How to break Up Disney". Opinion. Politico. Archived from the original on 2023-07-28.

Orange Planet

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

Suspect WP:UCOI, related to Smilegate. Smilegate has had a series of single-purpose accounts engage in likely COI on the English Wikipedia in recent months [3]. This user is just one in a pattern of COI editing. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and South Korea. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I can verify it exists but cannot find significant coverage for a standalone page. May I suggest WP:COIN for the editing behavior as that does not determine notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in the United Arab Emirates

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST, is contrary to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and United Arab Emirates. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are lists for most nations; I'm not seeing how this one is necessarily different from the rest. Mangoe (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point to WP:OTHER if anyone has similar thoughts. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you wish to propose this as a test case for deleting the lot (which I wouldn't oppose), but otherwise I think an explanation how this one is going to be worse than the others is in order. Mangoe (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenage Mail Centre

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

Not a notable Mail Centre. Rolluik (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Rolluik (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regional mail centres aren't really notable, though obviously they generate a bit of news when they get restructured or closed down. Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unparty: The Consensus-Building Party

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

Delete per WP:ORG: minor political party that ran in one election (in 2013) and garnered less than 0.01% of the vote. No significant coverage in reliable sources; coverage in general is limited to routine electoral coverage by local news outlets where their two candidates ran in 2013. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2013 British Columbia general election as an ATD. Fails WP:ORG. मल्ल (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NPOL. It ran in a single election and won nothing. There is not much media coverage of this party to meet notability threshold. Patre23 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, no indication of notability and no in depth coverage. --hroest 18:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Concept

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

Delete or merge / redirect to Western alienation, per WP:ORG. Minor, fringe political party that ran in a few elections and by-elections, garnering less than 1% each time. No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources available online, or in BC provincial archives that I could find. Perhaps it warrants a mention at Western alienation if reliable source(s) are found, but the topic has not had sources to demonstrate standalone notability in over two decades. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Western Canada Concept no longer has a presence of any significance in Canadian politics (thankfully), but it attracted a significant amount of media coverage in the 1980s and early 1990s, and it's been given non-trivial mention in several published works on Canadian politics. (A search for the phrase "Western Canada Concept" on the Internet Archive's "Search Text Contents" function yields 632 text sources. Even accounting for some duplication, that's a credible amount.)
Many organizations that were notable in the pre-internet age don't have much of an online presence now; this is one of them. CJCurrie (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I should mention that the Western Canada Concept actually won a seat in the Alberta provincial legislature in a 1982 by-election. (For context, see Olds-Didsbury and Gordon Kesler.) It's not correct to say they "garnered less than 1% each time." CJCurrie (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with CJCurrie, there is significant coverage. Actually a decent amount of coverage online too, from what I can see. I've added a few sources, one of which would count for notability. Alongside the sources on archive.com identified above, there are also 2069 hits for "Western Canada Concept" on NewspaperARCHIVE.com and 13 on JSTOR.//Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party did elect an Alberta MLA in a byelection, so it was definitely mainstream for a year or so before becoming a fringe movement again. Indefatigable (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They did elect a candidate and had significant coverage with over 2000 newspaper articles mentioning them, so this seems clearly notable. --hroest 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Rugby Union

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an amateur sporting organization which fails to meet WP:GNG due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV. I found sources online that it exists, but nothing that was third party, independent, nor reliable, and no source has ever been added to the article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this may appear to be the second nomination, that is only true on a standalone basis; it was first nominated in 2014 in a bundled nomination that failed as "no consensus". This is why the first standalone nomination, which attracted absolutely no comments at all, itself ended as "no consensus" (as soft deletion is considered a form of PROD, it only applies to never-previously-nominated articles; a more-direct PROD had previously been procedurally declined due to the 2014 bundled AfD). I have no opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Rugby Alberta per nom --Louis (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Asian Studies Society

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

Declined prod. Unreferenced for 15 years and fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom FMSky (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Council Deputies Committee

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

Redirect to United_States_National_Security_Council#Deputies_Committee, where it's already covered. WP:REDUNDANT Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities Working Group

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

Once of hundreds of working groups under the United States National Security Council over decades. Worth a line in the parent article, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Longhornsg (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Would suggest merging to the main article, but the main article does not mention the working groups at all. Nayyn (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New England Translators Association

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

re-nominated as someone removed the PROD tag at the last second to create an implausible redirect. Per original reasoning "Unreferenced for 18 years and fails WP:ORG" -- FMSky (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I couldn't find any news articles, and the mentions on the web were mainly either versions of the Wikipedia article or the group's own outreach materials. The title was briefly redirected to American Translators Association, but the article's current content suggests the groups are not affiliated (though, presumably, they have overlapping interests). Cnilep (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women

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

Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, and Thailand. UtherSRG (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was the first feminist organization in Thailand, and played a significant part in the development of the organized women's movement in Thailand. It plays an important role for women's rights in Thailand at present, and have significant coverage, content and references. I am suprised that it is questioned to begin with. --Aciram (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the multiple references shown by {{Find sources}} news and newspapers. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously has independent sources confirming its impact and importance as a women's organisation in Thailand. Here's some more sources 1. Emergency Home: Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women. In: By Women, For Women: A Study of Five Women’s Organizations in Thailand. Research Notes and Discussion Papers. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute; 1991:77-91. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/by-women-for-women/emergency-home-association-for-the-promotion-of-the-status-of-women/5C8BA1BD7DB46354FE7B05C5601CC273?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=bookmark ; International Journal of Social Science And Human Research ISSN(print): 2644-0679, ISSN(online): 2644-0695 Volume 04 Issue 08 August 2021 DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i8-42, Impact factor-5.586 Page No: 2257-2259, https://ijsshr.in/v4i8/Doc/42.pdf LPascal (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Palestine Advocacy Community

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

The sources in the article don't seem to include any substantial information about this particular organization, they either 1) mention it as having been affiliated with a protest or petition gathering w/o further detail or 2) mention it as part of a broader story about multiple other similar organizations. A WP:BEFORE in google/bing news, google books, google scholar, JSTOR, newspapers.com, and PressReader did not turn up any additional coverage so I don't think the subject meets WP:NORG. I also don't see a clear redirect/merge target. Zzz plant (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Palestine, and Ohio. Zzz plant (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JACKSNNZ

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

Unreferenced stub (well, just a general ref, no footnotes). Uncler how this meets WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. My BEFORE shows some mentions in passing here or there, but noting in-depth. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 13:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it was such a common acronym, it gets zero google news hits. Fails GNG by a long mile. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Biological Weapons Convention, which seems to be the only area where this grouping has any relevance. There is sigcov in reliable sources [4][5][6], but since this grouping is apparently only relevant at the conferences on this particular convention I don't see the need for a standalone article. @LibStar and @Piotrus at Hanyang, would you be okay with a merge? Toadspike [Talk] 11:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to BWC. A JSTOR search turned up reliable sources including Becker (2007) [7], Meier (2006) [8], Becker (2008) [9], which confirm that JACKSNNZ is an informal coordination group focused narrowly on BWC-related issues. This is best merged with the main BWC article to prevent fragmentation (WP:CFORK). HerBauhaus (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Biological Weapons Convention there is coverage in Books and academic articles to lend some support of the subject that its not made up but not enough to warrant its own article. --hroest 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic in First Place!

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

Fails relevant guidelines including WP:ORG. Most of the article isn't even about the political party. The sources which do relate to the party, do not provide in-depth and independent coverage of it. C 679 15:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 15:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- There are plenty of sources, but maybe it's true that the party itself isn't the notable topic here. Possible move to Ladislav Vrabel? (Currently a redirect to this article). Jdcooper (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Jdcooper that the sources are sufficient, and they could be expanded as well. The party is currently active and plans to run in the October election as well.

At max, it would be feasible to merge this article with Czech Republic First!, but I don't think that's needed. Kroulacek (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antiglobalization activists in Syria

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

Possibly not notable. GZWDer (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This has existed since 2006, but was never sourced. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Roofing Contractors Association

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Reid Ribble. Ribble was only president for 2 years and his article contains no information on what this association is/did. Article created by a single purpose account.

A search in google news only comes up with roofing related sources which are not independent for meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Secondary Ticket Agents

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Financial Services Authority. I don't believe it should be redirected to an article which doesn't even refer to it. This article was created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced since 2008. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese Futsal First Division

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

Challenged prod. A WP:BEFORE yields nothing significant about this second-tier futsal league in a tiny country Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Malta. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maltese Futsal League. Giant Snowman 09:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maltese Futsal League#History where it is mentioned that only the top league now exists and thus this league is now defunct. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RåFILM film collective

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

Fails WP:ORG. The article seems to be created here as only for promotion with only one self-published source being repeated after RåFILM was deleted as WP:G11. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, and Sweden. Agent 007 (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ya it looks like but it also contain some information this author might change the tone and make it informative Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 How did you know before-hand ? Agent 007 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Main subject seems to be Detained (2015) which does not have significant media coverage. Everything else seems extraneous. I fixed the structure of the page, but I don't think it has a place on Wikipedia. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	This discussion containing LLM-generated text from an AI chatbot or other tool has been collapsed. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The organization creates impactful films on social, environmental, and humanitarian issues. Their documentaries are widely cited and used by NGOs and academic institutions. Focusing on marginalized communities and public awareness, these films serve as powerful educational tools and continue to inspire positive change through storytelling. Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Manthanvashistha009 Why are you using ChatGPT like tools to reply. Are you being paid by RåFILM or related to Eduwriter189? Agent 007 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no i am not related to any of these Manthanvashistha009 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can u guys let me know which part make it promotional and how should i maintain the neutrality Eduwriter189 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People have already adviced you many times on your talk-page. Agent 007 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is using only primary sourcing, not acceptable. I can only find one passing mention [10].. We has next to nothing for sources, so just nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at this time way too little mentions in media. Primary sourcing is not enough.BabbaQ (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant COI. Deb (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Stubify - I have found several sources in Swedish media that cover Råfilm and things they have done. Even excluding coverage entirely about their films (I'm not sure if they count, it is about their productions) there are two in Sydsvenskan: [11] [12] and one in Proletären: [13].
I agree that the current article needs severe cleanup, and we should start from a clean slate by stubifying it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of their films: [14] [15] [16] AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been proposed for deletion because it is written promotionally, not because it's not notable. Deb (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG is a notability criteria. Stubifying solves the promotional content and I believe it is notable otherwise. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with stubification, At least with the current title and topic. I feel Detained/Forväret (2015) is the main subject but it does not meet WP:NFILM. You can find more if you search it's Swedish title (Forväret) but I couldn't find any coverage from non-promotional sources. That would be the only path to notability for Räfilm as it has received. I don't believe the limited semi- promotional swedish language sources are sufficient for stubification. I think the Swedish language sources also support that Forväret is the main notable topic , not Råfilm. This might be a good candidate to move to the Swedish language Wikipedia. If it is retained on English Wikipedia, I think reducing it to a stub about Forväret is the best move. There are plenty of indie films on Wikipedia that are notable but do not have notable studios or creators per WP:ORG InvisibleUser909 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E Health Point

AfDs for this article:

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

I looked at the sources identified in last AfD and they are now all dead. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and India. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:ORGCRIT. AndySailz (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, also article is too promotional and lacks notable news references.Almandavi (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep :In the previous AFD, User:Churn and change provided two sources: The World Health Organization , which is peer-reviewed and offers a factual, neutral, and analytical description of eHealthPoint’s services (telemedicine, clean water, diagnostics, medicines)[17]. The MIT Technology Review Review provides detailed, neutral, and factual information about eHealthPoint’s telemedicine model, service structure, and progress, further establishing its credibility[18]. Additionally, I found other sources: IJCMR is a peer-reviewed journal, but its information is primarily based on eHealthPoint’s perspective, lacking third-party verification or critical analysis, making the article somewhat promotional[19]. The Daily Excelsior article is similar to The Economic Times article, as both provide identical information about the eHealthPoint and Max Healthcare partnership (e.g., covering 400 villages in Bathinda, ₹30 per consultation, and expansion plans)[20][21]. The Newswire source mentions the Genpact-NASSCOM award but is otherwise entirely promotional[22]. The HBS case study on eHealthPoint analyzes its business model, challenges, and social impact, offering valuable insights, though its proprietary nature limits publicly available information[23]. Given the two reliable sources (World Health Organization and MIT Technology Review), the page should be retained on Wikipedia. SachinSwami (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO article and the MIT review one are small 1 line mentions of E Health point and not SIGCOV and don't count for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*::The review of MIT seems to be entirely based on e-Health Point, but is there any mention of another company to negate this? The World Health Organization source only mentions the name of E Health Point, but it’s not clear if it’s fully based on it. Even if we accept that, there are still two reviews. The second is a case study from HBS, which is also a review [24]. Now, tell me whether to support this or not, and I’ll shape my opinion based on what you say. SachinSwami (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SachinSwami analysis. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CresiabBilli, have you personally checked all the sources? Can you specify which of the sources I provided are reliable and explain how they are appropriate? Please stop immediately supporting "Keep" just because someone else backs it—use your own judgment as well. SachinSwami (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have reviewed each article you provided. I am steadfast in my position. The articles you gave are significant and trustworthy. CresiaBilli (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I retracted my stance due to my mistakes and because the sources are 12 years old, as no current source confirms the company’s present existence. Now, you need to analyze the reliability of the HBS case study, explain why it is reliable, and specify what points are covered in it, as the study is 19 pages long and not visible to me. The MIT Technology Review page, due to the primary sources tag, doesn’t seem fully notable. If there has been any discussion about the MIT source in the context of reliable sources (RS), that should be shown. Most importantly, you need to provide evidence that I retracted my stance because of you. SachinSwami (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I am withdrawing my previous comment. All the sources are from 12 years ago, and no recent reviews can be found on Google. Therefore, there are no current sources about the company, so supporting "Keep" does not seem appropriate. SachinSwami (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, your changing the vote in this manner shows that you have done it out of hatred towards me. I can clearly see that you have already put me in sock puppet here. CresiaBilli (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a case in SPI on June 4, and after that, you commented on this AfD. Have I had any disputes with you on any page or for any reason prior to this? The answer is "no," so the question of harboring hatred toward you does not arise. SachinSwami (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global Student Forum

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

fails WP:NORG and entirely primary sourced promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. GoldRomean (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve: This appears to be a relatively new organization with a wide area of influence. A relatively quick search revealed this story I'm reviewing for additions to the article. I feel like deletion is too hasty at this stage. S1mply.dogmom (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promo page, similar to I.I.M.U.N.. Charlie (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is room for improvement on this article, It’s Broad. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 08:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for the Study of Silk Road Textiles

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of in-depth, secondary coverage about the organization. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Archaeology. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references all seem to be press releases/announcements put out by the organization, often being passed along by partner organizations. Or they don't mention this organization at all. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. --Here2rewrite (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article has already been at AFD so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colcom Foundation

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

Article has a history of promotion through environmental & civic projects. Significant portions of this article are just slightly re-worded from the Cordelia Scaife May page. Aside from the greenwashing and other projects that were listed prior to my removing of them, there is hardly enough for an article here. It was founded by May, funds anti-immigration causes, and received a large sum of money when May died. The only other piece of information here is that the foundation funded groups designated by hate groups by the SPLC, which could obviously be implied from their anti-immigration stance. This article is unnecessary & inherits at least a portion of it's notability from May, who was also the org's chairperson from its founding until her death in 2005. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:CORP and seems to be a significant behind-the-scenes player in U.S. politics. The article could be expanded using sources such as [25][26][27][28]. Nosferattus (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I observe considerable significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of an organization as mentioned in WP:NORG. CresiaBilli (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE, WP:SOURCESEXIST. You have not identified any actual coverage. One of multiple throw away !votes recently from this individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cordelia Scaife May. Reference #1 is a tax form; References #7-9 are foundation's website promoting its philanthropy; References #3, 16 do not mention the subject; References #13, 15 are blogs; References #4, 6, 10-12, 14, 17 are city newspapers on sponsorships and greenwashing. These types of references are aforementioned above. A search for non-local articles that significantly cover the foundation turned up The Chronicle of Philanthropy, Philanthropy News Digest and Inside Philanthropy (The latter is a paragraph in a broader story about CIS and the former two are WP:SPIP.

References #2 and 5 are extensive profiles of the foundation's founder and what happened when she croaked, which is also the majority of her Wikipedia where a merge+expansion is warranted. Notability in not inherited per nominator. Astapor12 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #6 is the Southern Poverty Law Center, not a city newspaper. Reference #13 is not a blog. Reference #10 is definitely about more than just sponsorships and greenwashing. That source is a 1,400 word story about the organization covering its history and impact (and only 2 paragraphs are about Cordelia May). Finally, I don't see how the profile in The Chronicle of Philanthropy is self-promotion. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a print magazine with actual writers. I don't think a paid promotional piece would mention that May "funded a group that promotes chemical sterilization of women around the world." Nosferattus (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly good coverage in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other media. --Salamandra-12 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added some new material and sources to the article, mostly about Colcom's grant funding and related impact and controversies. Nosferattus (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Family Foundation

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

In most sources, the Bravo Family Foundation is a passing mention rather than the focus of the article (typically Orlando Bravo). This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. 30Four (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. 30Four (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I would not be strongly opposed to merging the content into Orlando Bravo, it's important to note that much of the more significant coverage that the organization has received can be found in Spanish-language and Puerto Rico-focused news sites, which may have been overlooked. See the dozens of articles in El Nuevo Día here: https://www.elnuevodia.com/buscador/bravo%20family%20foundation/*/*/*/*/*/ - many of these are passing mentions, but several would certainly be considered WP:SIGCOV. There is a similar wealth of coverage in News Is My Business (see here) and Primera Hora (such as this one). It's natural for articles covering the organization to focus on the founder, since the organization bears his name and the two are inextricably linked. But that shouldn't take away from the organization's distinct notability when the coverage is there. (Note: I have a conflict of interest with the organization, as I work for Thoma Bravo.) JBarTB (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Center

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

Article lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Organizations, Companies, Technology, and New York. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic seems notable to me. Promotional content can be reduced. Passes GNG. AndySailz (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had some press in 2014 which seems to be around its launch, but nothing since that time that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Huffington Post is a contributor piece and the rest is mentions our routine coverage which does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CNMall41 - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:OR - chit-chatty blog, not an encyclopedia article, with insider information that could only be accessed through interviews or original sources. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 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⁺⁺ 20:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roots of Reform Judaism

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

Tagged for notability for more than 10 years and fails WP:NORG. Non-notable constituency within the Union for Reform Judaism, which is a suitable redirect target as an WP:ATD. Per a before, unable to find independent, significant coverage of the group that would establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Dapat

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

WP:TOOSOON, electoral organization that failed to win at least one of the possible three seats in congress. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I fail to see how this is "too soon", as the election itself just happened. Sports teams are not sent to AFD as "too soon" if they haven't won a championship yet. Care to send Minnesota Timberwolves to AFD (LOL)? There's one WP:RS used on this article. WP:GNG does not mention how many WP:RS there should be, but this has one. Howard the Duck (talk)

Comment There is nothing much to write about the partylist besides "they ran". Whats up with the double dtandard at 1Munti Partylist's deletion nomination where you do note it didnt win any seats (but to be fair you did not vote gor or against its deletion) and EduAKsyon. Was it because this party is somehow connected to Aksyon Demokratiko (an assertation which seems to be made through an assumption of its founder, Bobbit Roco being a former president). Please at least make it clear why is this any different. I might have overlooked something Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think WP:NPOSSIBLE will save this article. A partylist especially a recently established one isn't usually covered by in real life publications either. So the typical sourcing would be news articles (supplemented by the partylist website if ever) Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, this has one WP:RS covering it therefore passing WP:SIGCOV. The others didn't. 1Munti Partylist is a borderline case as it is related to the One Muntinlupa party and if it's the same organization one can argue that it if someone finds WP:RS that passes WP:SIGCOV then it has the same situation as this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is only one RS, that that is insufficient to meet GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do my search in google and didn't find references which contain significant coverage about the topic and in mentioned references too. Hence, it fails to show WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Freedom

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, not updated in over ten years. Unlikely to be salvageable at this point. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SPORTBASIC appears to apply to bios not teams. WP:NTEAM says that there are no special notability criteria for teams other than those listed under particular sports and American football doesn't seem to be listed on that page? This defunct team appears to have been covered somewhat regularly by the Manchester, Nashua, and Keene newspapers with occasional coverage elsewhere. Jahaza (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's unclear what you're referring to: there are three references in the article. There is no coverage by newspapers from Nashua or Manchester(the first reference is a wire story), and only one story from Keene. "Somewhat regularly" would infer that they would have coverage of all, if not most, of their games in addition to other coverage. If this coverage exists, why has it not been added in the last decade? If you can assist with adding these references, you are welcome and encouraged to do so.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:20, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories