Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London

Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD of an individual office of the UNHCR. Completely fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect. Repeating the reason I gave for deprodding this: "This should be (merged and) redirected somewhere. Possibly List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom#International organisations but a page about the UNHCR/WFP representatives would be better if there is one". Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree there's anything particularly useful to merge. I really doubt many readers already on Wikipedia are going to be searching "Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London" to get to a list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They won't be using this title to find a list of diplomatic missions in London, but they will be using this title to find the content we have about this topic that is located at the list page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A redirect is effectively from a search term, other than incoming links (which mostly seem to be from the diplomatic missions in London template). I'm questioning who will be using such a specific, lengthy search term. I think it's a very implausible search term. If they forget to add WFP when searching, they'll get nowhere but if they include WFP there's a redirect? That's so arbitrary and unnecessary. Keep in mind that prior to the PROD and AfD, the page was struggling to get a single view a day. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article merely confirms it exists, fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the World Bank, London

Office of the World Bank, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD of an individual office of the World Bank. No other office has its own page. Clearly fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect which is what I said should happen when I deprodded this. I'm just not certain what the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the proposer of a merge or redirect cannot identify a target, that's a rather significant problem. You deprodded the article but failed to suggest a credible alternative to deletion. In that case, the article should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund

Bandhan Mutual Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Trivial coverage according to

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Coalition for Organ Donation

Youth Coalition for Organ Donation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Organization known for a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable independent sources to meet
  WP:SIRS. Jfire (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One failed measure which was enough to garner local, regional, and national news still meets Wikipedia’s notability standards, but in this case, there was an additional, successful piece of legislation passed in partnership with The YCOD.

Meets notability standards. Evanroden1 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:NORG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

vote delete. feels like a company trying to promote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:45F0:31E0:A5BA:C143:EE9E:F7BA (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Function Health

Function Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Thrice declined at AfC prior to acceptance. While the search is hard given health functions, a search combined with Hyman's name just brings more publicity and churnalism. I don't see the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Companies. Star Mississippi 00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Although the article has independent references, it's a stub that reads like a promotional pamphlet, with minimal effort made to establish notability beyond one of its co-founders having a Wikipedia article of his own. CoolieCoolster (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above. Avoids A7, but is a long way from N, and I do not see how it could possibly get there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haramad Special Police Force

Haramad Special Police Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was just accepted via AfC (see User_talk:Bkissin#Haramad_Special_Police_Force but Bkissin wasn't aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdiaziizho/Archive. It is not technically a G5 although I read it as such, so bringing it here for more eyes. Would not object to a redirect to Somali_Police_Force#Haramad_Special_Police_Force although that is unsourced. I don't know if any editors here who read Somali but please feel free to ping them here without a canvassing concern as there is literally nothing but the above and some mirrors in an English source search. Star Mississippi 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Police, and Somalia. Star Mississippi 23:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Close enough to G5 for me. Frankly, we should put a note on a sock blocked's drafts so that they don't come up like this. Or delete them when blocking. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per nomination. Also to add on sockpuppet (re)creation by sockpuppets I'd leave the draft open to catch newer sockpuppets.--A09|(talk) 20:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Guinea, London

Embassy of Guinea, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article contains no content other than location and former location of the embassy. Lacking any secondary sources, only source is government listing of diplomatic missions. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• On a quick Google search I can't find anything useful, so perhaps this should not be standalone. Best
  WP:ATD I can see is redirecting to List of diplomatic missions of Guinea#Europe. —Kusma (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect (NB this could have been done – or at least tried – without an AfD). I was going to suggest Foreign relations of Guinea as a target, but the target suggested by Kusma is probably better. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Kusma. Not notable enough for an article, but a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:John Canning Studios

Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, London

Embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No content other than stating the embassy exists. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bosnia and Herzegovina–United Kingdom relations. There is functionally no information to merge. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per IgantiusofLondon although List of diplomatic missions in London would also make a good target (I'd be happy with either). Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvalu House

Tuvalu House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An honorary consulate located in a residential house. No suitable secondary sources, only sources are a government diplomatic list and Embassypages.com. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Foreign relations of Tuvalu, where most of the encyclopaedic information already is, or List of diplomatic missions in London, which is probably a better destination for someone searching for this. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of France, Miami

Consulate General of France, Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A consulate office lacking secondary sources to demonstrate notability per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there’s no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Embassies are not inherently notable, and consulates even less so. This one fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of France, I could see someone possibly looking for this, but it doesn't meet GNG however. Samoht27 (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources specifically about the embassy. Sources are primary sources, deprecated sources and Twitter. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Kosovo, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  Kosovo-United Kingdom relations, which I'm surprised doesn't contain this useful information. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Seattle

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Seattle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Consular office that fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C.

Embassy of Cape Verde, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Ivory Coast, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Accendo

Order of Accendo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are practically no sources. The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism that is cited few times is just a generic and pretty short article on Discordianism [8]. Search of reliable sources (Google Books and Scholar) turns up nothing. Викидим (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources are adequate and article was recently restored via RfD. Skyerise (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is it just me, or is this in effect an edit war in progress that has spilled over into AfD? Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Don't see how it could be, since the target has been a redirect since 2015 that was just restored today. Unless you are referring to Veverve's nomination of 23 Discordian redirects to RfD on 5 April as edit-warring, in which case, yes. Skyerise (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: couldn't find a single source even mentioning this, not even the sources cited in the article give a single passing mention as far as I can tell (although I don't have access to the The West Australian article or Cosmic Trigger). Shapeyness (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, perhaps speedily, as a hoax. Like other commentators, I can find no reliable sources whatsoever that so much as mention "Order of Accendo". It seems to be completely made up. Jfire (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is, sadly, a dearth of good, independent, secondary sources on Discordianism-related topics, which has the knock-on effect of making them non-encyclopedic. Psychastes (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its been on the cat:nn since time began and not really worked. Fails
  WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I was going to suggest redirected to Discordianism until I noticed from the discussion there is a longer history here. The doubts about the verifiability that an "Order of Accendo" exists is convincing enough for me. Ben Azura (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council

Barlaston Parish Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Justice (Poland)

Freedom and Justice (Poland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced for over a decade, couldn't find source to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Easily fails
  WP:ORG. As the polish version of the article was also deleted, its evident that the organization is not notable. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Added a couple of citations, so at least the article isn't completely unreferenced now. The problem with secret underground organizations is that information about them is difficult to find (by design), but there seems to be more discussion of Freedom and Justice recent years. In fact, this journal article was published in 2021, probably after the Polish AfD discussion. There is also this 2022 article. These are brief mentions at best, but I don't have time to do a more comprehensive search right now. (The key seems to be to search for both "Wolnosc i Sprawiedliwosc" and "WiN" together.) A possible alternative to deletion might be to redirect to Cursed soldiers where this group is mentioned. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Cielquiparle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Song Haus Music

Song Haus Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article on a USA-based record label, created in 2010, is unreferenced. Per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and United States of America. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This company shares a warehouse with two other record labels: Metallic Blue Records and Rewind Records. [11] StonyBrook _babble 22:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Entertainment

Women in Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is a stub article that doesn't explain it's notability. As it stands, it appears to qualify for AfD. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It provides comprehensive information about a nonprofit organization seeking to do good work. Remma2 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of

WP:USEFUL - just because you believe it provides comprehensive information without explaining why is not a valid Afd argument. If you want the article to be kept, you can demonstrate whether or not it passes notability by showing multiple independent, reliable sources, which the article in its current form does not have. Bandit Heeler (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not established. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency

World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Potentially un-notable, does not cite any sources (and has not since 2021), uses the wrong tone. Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep but burn to the ground and rewrite. This group does seem to have been discussed widely back around 2004-05: [12], [13], [14] (note that the CNet article was long before Red Ventures turned the site into an AI-generated garbage heap). The coverage may not quite be "significant" in all cases, but is there. Regardless, the article is absolutely awful and is inexcusable in its current form. Also, note that more recently the abbreviation WWiSE has been used for an unrelated software package: [15]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have reworked it and added sources identified by WeirdNAnnoyed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The lead still isn't enough though. It just cuts straight to "Two industry "Pre-N" groups, TGnSync and the World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency (WWiSE), were formed". No identifying sentence. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Why not merge it to the timeline in IEEE 802.11n-2009 @TheTechie? That seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep But absolutely crummy stub. Needs a total rewrite. X (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Political and Legal Education

Institute for Political and Legal Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

according to https://web.archive.org/web/20061019054352/http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw8/eptw8l.html - the IPLE is a programme of study developed in New Jersey - not an organisation. The reference is dated 1995. This is the reference that I can find to IPLE. That suggests it was not widely used. On that basis, I suggest this page is deleted. Newhaven lad (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Education, United States of America, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails
  WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
• Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013). Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works. Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services. Springer US.
  ISBN 978-1-4899-0390-7
  . Retrieved April 22, 2024.
• Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978). Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
• United States. Office of Education (1974). Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [16], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per
  WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Rugby League XIII

Rugby League XIII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page has a single reference which is an error 404, context is minimal, and the article is missing anything the team actually did, fails

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Rugby league. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby Football League. Not enough content to justify a stand-alone article in its current state, but it's a plausible search term as the team played several fixtures in the previous century against national teams such as Australia and France. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management

Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable city-level government agency. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Let's try to make it better before deleting it. The OEM is a relatively new city agency and has had increased prominence recently due to events like the Delaware River chemical spill in 2023 and the 2023 wildfires, and other more localized emergencies. Unbandito (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to improvement but we do need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  What content do you believe should be merged and where's the secondary source coverage to support it? Because at the moment the only source is a press release from the City of Philadelphia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PRIMARY is acceptable for verification of a paragraph in a larger article. I would suggest merging this short article as a new section under Philadelphia#Public_safety. The content can then be improved in place by editors of the Philadelphia article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have to disagree, I think it's completely undue at the Philadelphia article. Without secondary sources we have no reason to believe this is a noteworthy organisation. I also absolutely oppose inserting irrelevant and unacceptable content at another article with the expectation someone else will "improve" it at some unknown time. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, you're free to disagree. However, I've proposed an

  WP:UNDUE argument is also without merit as my proposed subsection would be smaller than the others existing there. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It seems you think

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are arguments to avoid at deletion discussions. I'm raising legitimate sourcing and quality content concerns which you have completely ignored. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm ignoring article quality issues because

  WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That's a reason not to delete an entire article, not to insert new content in another article. I think this time you're really reaching trying to avoid deletion via ATD. AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is nothing suitable to merge.
  • The two prose sentences were copied verbatim from the referenced PDF (page 74/76) at the article's creation. As far as I can tell from Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#Pennsylvania and its ref, the PDF is copyrighted without a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Even if the copied text is not a copyright violation (WP:Copyright violations, policy), the official OEM site should be preferred as a source because it is current, not ten years out of date.
  • {{Infobox government agency}} would be inappropriate detail in Philadelphia#Public safety.
  • As AusLondonder commented above, a subsection for OEM of any length seems excessive, due to
    WP:WEIGHT (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, policy) considerations. The existing subsections have {{Main}} templates linking to Philadelphia Police Department and Philadelphia Fire Department, respectively. Although WP:Be bold is a guideline, I recommend proposing the addition at Talk:Philadelphia
    first.

  Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I buy these arguments but if I did, I think they would argue for a redirect to Philadelphia. That way the contents would be available to Philadelphia editors in the redirect's history. ~Kvng (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Consortium of Intelligence Professionals

Strategic Consortium of Intelligence Professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:LIBRARY. Jfire (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ephraim Israel National Convention

Ephraim Israel National Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Absolutely fails GNG. Indeed, "The existence of the party is unclear, the only reference found is at.[1]". Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm unable to find other sources for this party. Looking at the article, stating that EINC would have contested 1999 Lok Sabha election as Independent, this ought to be Rualpawla (see https://www.telegraphindia.com/north-east/jews-want-a-room-to-worship/cid/519407 ), who finished in fourth place with 4,508 votes (1.5%), which isn't too bad and there could presumably be more 1999 print material in local press that never made online. As of 1993 Rualpawla was the BJP state secretary [17]. In 2009 another name of party of Rualpawla appears, Israel National Front, [18], [19], [20]. Presumably this is either the same party or 2 different outfits organized by the same guy. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican Movement

Irish Republican Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.

Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet
  WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arboricultural Association

Arboricultural Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem to be notable. A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website). XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Software Industry Association

New York Software Industry Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be defunct - no recent activity - can't find anything after 2007 - no notable references online. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Software, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A search at the New York Secretary of State https://apps.dos.ny.gov/publicInquiry/ says that the association still exists. The archived versions of the association's website include pages that redirect to another group, New York Technology Council, Inc., which later merged into NY Tech Alliance, Inc. https://www.nytech.org/ Perhaps references exist for NY Tech Alliance and its events, including NY Tech Meetup. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A non article. It says nothing and has no refs. 25 edits in 19 years, so could have been prodded away. Desertarun (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentecostal Mission

The Pentecostal Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, Sri Lanka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep am finding some reliable sources coverage such as this, I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep have added references and is a century old church founded in 1923 feel the resources will be offline. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense. I see where you are coming from. This is probably a case where the sources do exist, but may be difficult to find initially. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Runners Association

World Runners Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet GNG/NCORP. The only source that is about WRA and in-depth is the BBC. Some of the sources make no mention of WRA and the others are brief mentions or based on what the organization/those affiliated say. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per the previously cited lack of evidence demonstrating notability. Furthermore, the organisation appears to be using Wikipedia for advocacy as evidenced by the fact that the article was commissioned by them (see article talk page), clarifying edits have been reversed by a user with a registered COI based only on the claim that the organisation is “legitimate and registered”, and a link to the article is displayed prominently on their website’s home page. The line “Wikipedia is not… to be an adjunct web presence for an organization” on Wikipedia:Advocacy appears to be particularly relevant here. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article, and Disicipline the editors who are COI-editing or removing tags inappropriately. The relevant policy here is not only
  WP:NSPORT
  as a sports league/organization. Looking at this as neutrally as possible, the bar for coverage is met:

• Jack Palfrey. "Is this the world's most exclusive travel club?". BBC News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
• "Danish runner contesting Russ Cook's claim says he wants to get 'facts correct': Russ Cook's claim has been contested by the World Runners Association". The Independent. 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
• "'Hardest Geezer' Russ Cook's Africa run contested by man who did it 14 years ago: Russ Cook, from Worthing, West Sussex, finished his gruelling 352-day run from South Africa to Tunisia on Sunday. But claims he is the first to run the length of Africa have been contested by the World Runners Association". Sky News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.

The fact that the organization seems to be using Wikipedia for promotion is unfortunate, but also must not be a reason for its deletion; as with all articles we need to look at the sources neutrally. --Habst (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

primary and is also churnalism. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:RSP

. They're also not the only sources, as you pointed out, there are many others from around that time period.

With great respect, I think this is a misapplication of

WP:Primary

 – of course, news outlets will respond to and report quotes and statements from organization officials with analysis. That is journalism and secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. A primary source would be, for example, citing the World Runners Association Charter document (if one exists) or similar.

Thank you, --Habst (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great respect back atcha @Habst :) but reliability has nothing do with churnalism. Other than the BBC article, all they say about WRA other than they dispute Cook's claim is that the WRA is "a group made up of seven athletes who have successfully circumnavigated the world on foot" or similar. That's not in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091, thanks, I hear your concern so I tried to look for mentions before the April 8th event. I found many, see this web search:

• "How many pairs of shoes does it take to run around the world?". Christian Science Monitor.
  ISSN 0882-7729
  . Retrieved 2024-04-12.
• "À Rouen, la marathonienne de l'extrême boucle son Tour du monde". leparisien.fr (in French). 2022-09-19. Retrieved 2024-04-12.

I don't think that these are all churnalism, and as that's a subjective term it's difficult to prove one way or the other. Furthermore, I don't think that an article needs to specifically say "WRA is..." by name for portions of the article to contribute to notability; members or components of the group may be discussed as well. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Independent and Sky News articles the WRA in these examples is only really being mentioned in passing due to an association with a notable event which are the actual focus of the articles.

These all seem like examples of

WP:INHERITORG

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it

Even the BBC article is in fact largely covering the pursuits of Olsen and the World Running Club - an entity which is not actually equivalent to WRA and was created almost a year before the WRA was founded. The WRA is only discussed over two sentences in the BBC article. That article is evidence for the notability of the WRC, not the WRA:

A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries

Perhaps as a compromise the WRA (or maybe more justifiably the World Running Club) could be merged with Olsen’s Wikipedia page until further evidence can be found for notability? Jaa.eem (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:RSP reliable sources, the more I research this topic the more I think we would be making a mistake to delete that may be biased by the behavior of COI editors. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NORG explicitly states that an organisation must have multiple sources providing significant coverage. In fact, it also explicitly states that “A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant.”

WP:BASIC plainly cannot be applied as suggested. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...as the nom, I am not stuck on using the NCORP sourcing criteria given the crossover of org/sports/club but certainly

WP:SIGCOV by multiple sources. Either way, I think the three of us need to step back so others can opine. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I don’t think it should be controversial to utilise WP:NORG.

Scanning a bit deeper into the guidelines there is also a section specifics for NGOs which describes the WRA by their own admission:

Wikipedia:NGO

This also states that multiple significant sources are required. Jaa.eem (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific aspect of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is relevant here? It’s very possible that I’ve missed it but those guidelines do not appear to provide any specific guidance for organisations claiming to be a governing body. The “basic criteria” appears to be in relation to sports people rather than organisations.

Furthermore, the Independent and Sky News articles you have linked provide only trivial coverage of the WRA itself - they are instead focussed on Russ Cook and comments made by individuals who are members of the WRA regarding Russ Cook. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SPORTBASIC, even though it is about people, in lieu of more specific criteria. SPORTBASIC prong 5 says that if there is at least one non-database source, which we can agree that the BBC article is, then "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". I'm open to other ideas, but in my review of the material I am having a hard time being comfortable with a delete decision here in light of the breadth of coverage. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:NTEAM, states: This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.

Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa.

The BBC article describes WRA as a club, though they frame it as a travel club, so I think GNG is the relevant guideline. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with this @Habst

My read of

WP:SPORTBASIC

is that it is intended to reduce the burden of evidence of notability for individual people which I think is justifiable - I would suggest that a sportsperson on the borderline of genuine notability (putting aside Wikipedia’s guidelines for a moment) is less likely to have comprehensive secondary sourcing available and thus reducing the burden of evidence makes sense. Conversely I would suggest that a genuinely notable “international governing body” would realistically have substantial coverage and thus reducing the burden of evidence purely by virtue of being related to sport cannot be justified.

Furthermore, as @S0091 says WP:NSPORT does provide guidance for clubs which I think is a much closer analogue to this example than an individual sports person. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NSPORT

is because it's the most specific guideline I could find that includes the subject. If I were to describe WRA, I would say it's a "sports organization" and that phrase appears exactly in the lede of NSPORT but not any other guideline.

The

WP:NTEAM section, on the other hand, doesn't seem to apply because I would struggle to call the WRA a team (it doesn't compete against other "teams", for example) nor is it a "club" in the European sense of the word intended there, a sports club

.

I agree that "international governing body" is also a good descriptor, and I think that we should have high standards for notability when there's already a competing governing body so as not to place

WP:UNDUE weight on one over the other. But in this case for the specific niche of the organization (running across continents), there doesn't seem to be any competing body setting standards, so I don't think we would be falling in to that trap. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that given the lack of specificity in WP:NSPORT it would be better to fall back to WP:NORG.

There is a substantial difference in the scope of a organisation which competes within a sport vs an “international governing body” of a sport. If a sports team should meet GNG surely a governing body shouldn’t be subject to more lax guidelines?

Also, with regards to the issue of undue weight I would suggest that a high standards of notability should be applied regardless. The status of “international governing body” effectively confers a level of ownership over a sport thus I think there should be a high level of confidence that such a status is widely agreed upon. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Subject is discussed at length in numerous notable sources.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources discuss the subject at length beyond the previously cited BBC article? Jaa.eem (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even the BBC article doesn't discuss the WRA at length. It mentions it once in the context of the World Runners Club, a related but different organisation. Cortador (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is insufficient sourcing, no in-depth coverage, and the article created as an ad. Cortador (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources don't establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposed
  WP:ATD: Redirect and merge some details into List of pedestrian circumnavigators as a governing authority for the running circumnavigations. --Habst (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm fine with a redirect, though I think "governing authority" might be a stretch but that's a content issue. Pinging others: @Jaa.eem, @Cortador, @Dexxtrall, what you think about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree that the World Runners Association aren't a governing authority, and would be reluctant about a merge if it winds up suggesting that they are. Redirect is fine though, and not entirely opposed to some content being merged if done appropriately ~~~ Dexxtrall (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not opposed to a redirect, though I agree about the content concerns. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Even with the paltry sources, there are just too many of them to ignore. [21] seems to be a RS, it talks about the one individual but always mentioning the WRA. There are about a dozen stories that discuss him and the WRA is mentioned, we should have enough for at least BASIC here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also a brief paragraph in this German book [22], my German is rusty but a Google translate upload of the image talks about the club existing since 2014. I think we have just enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s a single mention in a self-published book.

  There doesn’t appear to be a single source providing significant coverage of the subject - they’re all largely passing mentions in articles about other notable events/people.

  I think @Habst’s suggestion of a redirect is justified given the number of mentions but there’s not enough information from secondary sources to justify a full article. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b BASIC only applies to people, not entities or other topics. The source you linked to is not about WRA and is only a couple mentions. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Barely at GNG then with minimal coverage, but enough of it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the German source, what else does is say about WRA? I only see a sentence. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of pedestrian circumnavigators: All the sources are about the "World Runners Association is contesting..." or "claiming..." something about Russ Cook. A BBC article writes about how the World Runners Club came to be, mentioning the World Runners Association in one paragraph. Is there anything specifically about the World Runners Association? I don't think so. A lack of significant coverage. Cooper (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Warriors

Findlay Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability, no indepth references about the team, apparently unknown whether they even played a full season, and claims about becoming the Dayton Jets unsourced and unverifiable[23].

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've added references to the page. The claim of them becoming the Dayton Jets comes from the main page Continental Hockey League (1972–1986) though where that was sourced from, or if its even accurate, I don't know.PensRule11385 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: The added references don't support the notability of the subject, and it is very hard even to argue in favor of notability if there aren't even sources verifying the team's record. This should be redirected to the main Continental league article. Ravenswing 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - team record was in the Decatur paper. Received decent amount of coverage in it. I’ve looked at it before, but can’t now as newspapers.com is temporarily inaccessible through the Wikipedia Library. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 22:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be happy to shift my view to keeping if actual sources providing significant coverage are cited. Ravenswing 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mask Bloc

Mask Bloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe these groups meet the notability criteria for organisations, there is limited in-depth coverage of the phenomena. This is too soon for this to be an article, and borderline promotional of the advocacy group. JeffUK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and COVID-19. JeffUK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a group its more like an organizing tactic similar to Black Blocs and I don't see how its too soon as the covid pandemic is an ongoing situation and had an article as soon as it was named. The article is important information for an ongoing pandemic I don't see why it would be deleted. Wikibobdobbs (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the suggestion of removing this article, and I'm confused as to how it can be justified, given that the movement is very much an active (and growing) one. I'm currently beginning research on this specific form of mutual aid as part of my postgraduate dissertation, and while the article needs to be cleaned up for consistent formatting, etc., there is no reason (other than a "political" objection to masking) to remove this at present, even if the information is under-reported. This is "grey literature," essentially. MAINShorebird (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Choral Arts Society

Baltimore Choral Arts Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page for many years. I see some mentions and directories and possibly even programmes for performances, but I'm not seeing the level of substantial independent reliable sourcing needed to meet the inclusion criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Maryland. JMWt (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's plenty of
  WP:SIGCOV [24] - article needs work but that's not grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Ok great, please add the strongest sources to the page that show the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How about you do it instead. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The news sources you've provided are mostly not accessible to me in my country. But you are right that these appear to be SIGCOV looking at the titles of the news articles, but it is a shame nobody has improved it since 2009. JMWt (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also don't have a subscription to Baltimore newspapers. This is neither here nor there for whether the article should be deleted. Hopefully an editor from Baltimore will see this conversation and do it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see enough independent reviews to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AmericaSpeaks

AmericaSpeaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article with a promotional history; this version started out simply as a copy of a promotional version deleted as spam, and it hasn't gotten any better. There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of
  WP:10YT Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NCORP and 10YT. By the way, a related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_Speaks Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails
  WP:NCORP's inclusion criteria. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The relevant standard is

  WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

@Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter, "Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind, a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter "A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Cielquiparle and
  WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stowmarket Town Council

Stowmarket Town Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No secondary sources. Lowest-tier local government authority in England, parish councils are rarely notable enough for an article. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added some secondary sources though I'm not sure if they are enough to qualify. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's nothing particuarly worth saying about this council. There doesn't seem to be much information about the award they recieved and it seems similar to those run-of-the-mill industry awards that aren't generally considered notable or pointing towards notability. ---- D'n'B-t -- 08:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If not notable if could be merged with Stowmarket. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stowmarket#Governance as an AtD and where the Council is already mentioned. Unlikely notability will be established. A merge would unbalance the Stowmarket article; lists of non-notable past mayor's names and a list of current councillors aren't normally included within articles on the settlement. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoria Wireless Users Group

Pretoria Wireless Users Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I was unable to find any mention of this organization anywhere, hence seems to fail

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Africa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]