Aja viide. Aja lugu.

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:

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

Institute for Hermetic Studies

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

Non-notable organization, no independent coverage. Skyerise (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OSL Consulting

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article was previously nominated and deleted before. Current version still lacks independent in-depth sources and requirements are even more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 12:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 12:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Engineering, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Droom

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

Fails WP:NCORP Page creator is already blocked for undisclosed payments. I don't understand how this page is accepted in AFC. Company is just promoting themself. | News about Sandeep, nothing to do with company, 2nd link | No insights by a journalist, self spoken content, | PR Driven content, with no author, [1], [2], News about cancelled IPO, [3], | again routune coverage of finance & funding, | PR Driven future plans, which acutally never happened, [4], PR Announcement., | again annoucement , | Same news about the founder Lordofhunter (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the nomination: The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:COI. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Websites, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wheere

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it was created by the company’s founder in violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. The article appears promotional and lacks significant independent coverage to establish WP:NPOV. No reliable secondary sources provide substantial coverage of the company beyond routine funding announcements and press releases. NenChemist (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NenChemist (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it was created by the company’s founder in violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. " Do you have any evidence for this? Apart from that, what makes you believe that e.g. the first article, from renowned newspaper Le Figaro [5], is not "substantial coverage"? Fram (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NenChemist, a COI is not grounds for deletion. A true WP:COI (with evidence) should be marked as such and then checked. Similarly it is not an automatic violation of WP:NPOV. Please reread both policies more carefully.

Also, as stated above, the coverage used is definitely from reputable sources. In a quick Google search I see more hits, so I suspect that a proper WP:BEFORE was not performed. This nomination appears deeply flawed to me.

N.B., I will leave to others to voice an opinion on whether WP:NCORP is met, which is the appropriate question. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find this deletion nomination highly inconsistent and misleading. Initially, the article was draftified with the argument that it was "not ready for mainspace and needed improvements." Now, instead of suggesting those improvements, the same user has shifted to a completely different argument, claiming I am the founder of Wheere and that the article should be deleted, and then switching to coverage argument. This sudden change of reasoning raises serious questions about whether the goal is truly to ensure Wikipedia's quality or just to push for deletion of pages at all costs.

The COI accusation itself is completely baseless. The only supposed "evidence" is that my name is "Jean-Pierre" while the founder’s name is "Pierre-Arnaud." This is an absurd and laughable argument with no real substance.

Beyond that, I am not sure this user has an understanding of the media landscape in France. The article is sourced with reputable and independent publications such as Le Figaro, Les Échos, and JDE, which are among the most respected newspapers in the country. Claiming that these do not constitute significant coverage only demonstrates a lack of familiarity with French media.--Jean-PierreCL (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inktel

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacks independent in-depth sources. This was nominated last time here for NC but that was a long time ago. Company notability is more stringent now per WP:ORGCRITE. Imcdc Contact 01:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, and Florida. Imcdc Contact 01:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks sources demonstrating significant coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely agree with nom here. Very little sources on the subject, and lacking widespread independent secondary coverage. It's worth noting that WP:SPA that created the 2010 article may have had a connection to the subject, which has since slipped through the cracks in the years since creation. GuardianH 19:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest Nepal

AfDs for this article:

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

Two sources with a passing mention and probably not redirect per confusing name. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the previous discussion, none of those sources that were mentioned are notable, all blogs and the one Portuguese source that mentions it is a mild passing mention. The top-level league of Palau is essentially a recreational league, with the teams seemingly not having any true organization and structure. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although WP:FOOTYN says [t]eams that have played in ... the national tier(s) of the league structure in countries where no cup exists ... generally meet WP:GNG criteria, I still feel we must perform due diligence to ensure that WP:GNG is met, which I do not feel is the case. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Mark Warner movement

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

I can find about two sources on the web about the political organization, everything else is general data from PAC websites. I also cannot find much of anything about a potential Mark Warner run in 2008, something this was a part of. Articles sources are not RS Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The main "Draft Mark Warner" organization doesn't meet WP:NORG. There's coverage in a book, [6], but that's mostly an interview. Can't find anything else other than some brief mentions, e.g. [7]. I can't find any coverage of "Young Americans for Warner". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council on Spiritual Practices

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't reach WP:NCORP, with the objections in the last deletion discussion also seeming to hold; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council on Spiritual Practices. Klbrain (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkEquity

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack of independent in-depth sources. I do see some mention of how the original went bankrupt but nothing really in-depth. Imcdc Contact 09:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and New York. Imcdc Contact 09:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable, independent sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freudenberg IT

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not to be confused with Freudenberg Group. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Firm is defunct. WP:SPA creator. Imcdc Contact 09:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Computing, and Germany. Imcdc Contact 09:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lack of reliable sources with significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plextronics

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Subject is now defunct. Lack of independent in-depth sources. Imcdc Contact 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Pennsylvania. Imcdc Contact 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks independent and reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage, fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Peace Foundation

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

Can't really find anything outside of the one RSSSF, not enough for an article Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Palau – But I'm not against deleting it, since the name is absurdly vague and could indicate other subjects. Svartner (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Library Association

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

Subject isn’t Notable. Lacks supportive sources. Written like an essay. Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stub or draftify there is sourcing on which to write an article, but this AI/G12 (I just can't find the source) isn't it. I'll try to clean it while at Afd, but easiest to start over. Star Mississippi 02:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stubbed it. It still may be a G12 but the G11 issues have been resolved. Star Mississippi 02:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Global Energy Network Institute

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Based on 1 primary source. Not seeing coverage in google news or books to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tried a search as well about the company, seems most hits are from primary sources, the lack of citations of the article also needs be addressed, primarily though if no additional secondary sources can be added, I would have to agree with LibStar for lack of WP:ORG Villkomoses (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, Technology, and California. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is poorly written and has only one source. ^Wiinter_U 08:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Analyst (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Has been nominated for PROD twice. Constant promotional issues. Imcdc Contact 12:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Texas. Imcdc Contact 12:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setter Capital Inc

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Was previously PROD nominated but disputed by article creator who is a WP:SPA and most likely has WP:COI. Imcdc Contact 11:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Canada. Imcdc Contact 11:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HARD DELETE: fails WP:ORGCRITE. Source #2 & #5 are non-existent. All the concerns raised by Imcdc are valid so, that's a no for me. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've dug up archived versions of the defunct sources used in the article, they don't constitute WP:SIGCOV. There's insufficient secondary coverage with "Setter Capital reported" or "Setter Capital" said, such as WSJ, lots of press releases. Hmr (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sangonet

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to verify its notability and impact, as required by Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Vista Ambulance Services

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

Should be considered for deletion if it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability, as it may not meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria for organizations. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well, does it? And why does this nom read as if it were generated by AI? Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bella Vista, Arkansas#Public safety, where appropriate mention is made. And please use your keyboard and manually type your rationale next time. Nathannah • 📮 20:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bybit

AfDs for this article:

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

Bringing this here because I'm not sure the 2025 hack is sufficient to overcome the multiple deletion discussions. NB: not even close to a G4 and no concern with the creation by an established editor, I just think this needs clear resolution before further time and energy is dedicated thereto. Star Mississippi 01:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. Star Mississippi 01:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think there's any serious doubt that the Bybit hack meets WP:GNG, as the undisputed largest crypto exchange hack ever (yet!) linked to North Korean state actors it has been extensively covered in numerous reliable sources (NYT, BBC, CNBC, CNA etc) and the content in the article is already appropriately sourced. There is an open question about whether the article should focus on the exchange as a whole or only the hack (cf. 2024 WazirX hack), but that's already being discussed at Talk:Bybit and it's a (potential) requested move, not deletion. Jpatokal (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Jpatokal. A (potential) requested move is a better option than deletion, provided that the majority of AfD participants support it. Charlie (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is one of the largest crypto exchanges in the world, which experienced the largest crypto exchange hack ever so far. Coverage from maybe different notable news outlets. It would be a disservice to investors to make this solely about the hack. There is information in the history section with FTX that is unrelated to the hack and I'm sure investors would like to read about the company prior to sending funds and investing on this platform. There is also way less notable exchanges such as ShapeShift that have standalone pages. Lekkha Moun (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NCORP, being of service to investors has absolutely nothing to do with providing information to investors. Star Mississippi 12:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it's irrelevant. I was referring to more "context" for readers, but verbalized it the wrong way. Veldsenk said it well below: It would give more context to the reader and there is no benefit in converting it into just a hack article as per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bybit is the 2nd largest Cryptocurrency exchange in the world, according to coinmarketcap.

BTW, there was absolutely no reason to delete it 3 months ago or defaming me, as you can read here. IdanST (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. Even before this hack, major publications like Bloomberg ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]) and others have been covering it for years. It was the second largest crypto exchange (after Binance) before this hack [17]. There is some academic coverage about it as well and due to on-going investigation Bybit will continue to receive coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, an article about Bybit makes more sense because it would give more context to the reader (there is no benefit in converting it into just a hack article and scale back the scope). Veldsenk (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the conclusion from the prior discussion. The company was notable prior to the hack. After the hack, there is virtually no question that there is more than enough coverage to establish notability. Giannini Goldman (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as one of the top 3 largest Crypto exchanges, there are many articles about them that would establish notability.Darkm777 (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggested a title change on the talk page a few days ago. This page could be converted into 2025 Bybit hack ,similar to the 2024 WazirX hack. Charlie (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article isn't about 2025 hack, but about Bybit itself. IdanST (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The difference about the 2024 WazirX hack and the Bybit hack is that WazirX is not worldwdide known while ByBit is 2nd largest Cryptocurrency exchange in the world. Lekkha Moun (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the article is about Bybit which is a notable company. Giannini Goldman (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ditto to Jpatokal, not much else to be said. Hmr (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has enough press coverage to meet atleast the General notability guideline. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Virginia fire departments

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

The material on this page would be better served on the pages of the specific localities. This page is missing departments, including that of the capital city (Richmond City is not the same as Richmond County). The topic itself is not inherently notable as the collection of Virginia fire departments cannot have received more coverage than the specific fire departments themselves. I would split it out but don't want to do that without seeking consensus. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list needs to be expanded. If we wanted to apply the reasoning for deleting Virginia's list, it may also apply to the other lists in Category:Lists of fire departments of the United States. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of fire departments in the United States as per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Florida fire departments and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The target article includes departments which have articles, we should not be listing each and every one of them. Ajf773 (talk)

List of fire departments in the United States

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

This is an entirely unsourced page whose material is best served by being added to the specific localities of those departments, or at the very least, to a statewide page. It is also an orphan. I was surprised to see it, given that I thought that the statewide fire department pages were already in bad shape. Bringing here because page creator (understandably) disagreed with PROD. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Every town has a fire department, I don't really see why we need a list of them. You can just type in XYZ Fire Department with the name of any random city and there's the article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It only list the ones that have their own Wikipedia article. Just like most lists do. Dream Focus 22:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid navigational list. You don't need a reference when you can see "fire department" in the name and a link to the article for that fire department. Some states have their own articles, but most don't, so everything is just put here. There were originally more smaller lists for this by state or territory, but I merged that information here, and those were all deleted. Dream Focus 22:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have Category:Fire departments of the United States by state, which may, perhaps, serve the same navigational purpose. I'm not quite ready to say "delete", but I do think this raises issues of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with Tryptofish above. Category is already there, which provides content just like what this article is. Asteramellus (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I got curious so I looked at every article in that category. They're all in pretty rough shape. Only Pennsylvania has a decent amount of citations, and List of New York fire departments in particular is a real doozy. I think if someone really likes fire departments and they want a task to do, updating List of fire departments in the United States and redirecting all the other pages to it might be the way to go. MediaKyle (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Festival of Books

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

This appears to fail WP:NORG, the applicable guideline (covering as it does an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services), for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. A quick source analysis:

WP:ROUTINE local news coverage that fails the WP:AUD test: [18], [19],[20], [21][22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29].
Mentions in WP:TRADES publications: [30], [31]
Content marketing content ([32])

The article also has a promotional tone with its cheerful descriptions of the local food options available and how it "fosters community engagement." Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Organizations, and Michigan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does not appear to have gathered fame on a national level; the lack of coverage in Gnewspapers or Gnews from outside the local area seems to support this. Seems like a fine local event, but just not quite notable enough for Wikipedia. This isn't the Angouleme festival of BD/animation or the Frankfurt Book Fair. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PROGETTAPS

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

lack of notability and reliable sources. It currently does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline Edit.pdf (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Edit.pdf (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Guatemala. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easton Rangers

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

Unable to confirm this club exists. There are a couple of results from allafrica.com between 2007 and 2009,[33] [34] as well as a BBC piece which is referenced in the article, but these give barely any details of the club itself. C 679 09:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sierra Leone. C 679 09:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 09:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Sierra Leone – As ATD. Svartner (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not thrilled about this - there are additional mentions in AllAfrica including [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] but the biggest problem is that they essentially disappeared in 2008–9, the BBC article claims they were renamed, and I can't find any evidence of the renamed team anywhere. RSSSF only mentions them once after 2008, in the covid shortened 2020 season. Based on the AllAfrica coverage, I think we could probably create a good stub about them if they were playing in the second division now instead of in 2008, but we may have found pretty much everything there is to find about them. SportingFlyer T·C 04:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Sierra Leone because the club is not so important that it should be a separate article --Edit.pdf (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church in Korea (BokUm)

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

No refs on the page for many years and I am unable to WP:V the basic details as they appear on the page. It's entirely possible that these can be verified in non-English sources but I'm not able to find them. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and South Korea. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, it appears that there was a previous AfD as part of many bundled pages about Korean churches. That ended as NC see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church JMWt (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources covering this church to a significant degree. Cortador (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Presbyterianism in South Korea: The page creator had a track record of creating articles on every single obscure reformed denomination regardless of notability before his block, often using highly unreliable sources. In this case, while the page is unsourced, the subject does appear in brief mention in the standard reference work by Bauswein and Vischer. So, this denomination exists (or did at one point). But I can't find any WP:SIGCOV, in English anyway, beyond a capsule description in Bauswein and Vischer, so I think a redirect is an appropriate AtD that preserves the page history should a future editor find WP:V sources to restore the article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montrose Works F.C.

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

No sign of notability, and one of the two links is dead. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as could have been nice to at least have it merged to an existing Wikipedia article about its respective company its representing, the Montrose Works Factory or even its original owners William Lee & Sons Limited, as part of it's history but I have yet to find an article made for it, to note though I did find it's company website still running https://www.wmlee.co.uk/about-us/our-history/ . So for me unless an article about its owners or the Facory where the F.C. team is named from can be made to be merged with, I agree with Allan Nonymous for its removal.Villkomoses (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1900–01 FA Cup qualifying rounds as sole claim to fame. Giant Snowman 19:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Per GiantSnowman. If offline sources later appear, it is easier to reestablish the article. Svartner (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per GiantSnowman and Svartner. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the above. I was going to ask why that article rather than 1899–1900 FA Cup qualifying rounds given that they played in both, but it seems the 1899-1900 article doesn't exist..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Thoma College of Science and Technology

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

Article subject fails WP:ORGCRITE. Taking a look at Google News shows no WP:SIGCOV, only passing mentions. Article's only source has been the school's own website since 2017. Parksfan1955 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and India. Parksfan1955 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Parksfan1955 (talk) 07:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor 1 source on the page. No secondary independent source with significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the subject lacks in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, it fails WP:ORGCRITE.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar (organization)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:GNG. It does not talk about why MORTAR is a significant or noteworthy organization. It also lacks high-quality sources. It has only been mentioned a couple of times in some relatively obscure articles from CNN, Politico, and other news. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of learned societies

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

Indiscriminate collection of links to Wikidata, a user-generated database, which is not a reliable source. There is more to say about this particular list, but I am not going there because that would likely just distract from the main point. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Organizations, and Lists. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. We should not be importing content from Wikidata, and that is the entirety of this list. It does not meet our standards for verifiability through reliable sourcing. And even for the entries that come with sources from Wikidata, they are of dubious independence from their subjects, generally formatted badly and unfixable by Wikipedia editing as the bad formatting comes from Wikidata. This should go as well for List of learned societies in the United States and List of learned societies in the United States, which have exactly the same issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try to separate your misgivings of Wikidata from the issue of whether this list should exist (which is the purpose of AfD)? This is the version of the article before it was converted to a table (using WD). This does not use any data from Wikidata but you will see that it is far inferior, with less information and no references at all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems to me that there are two issues. First does the list meet the criteria of WP:NLIST and second is it a useful thing for navigation per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. On the latter point, this is a long list of wikilinks which is a recognised form of navigation, other examples include List of banks (alphabetical). Returning to the former point, the question is whether the list is of notable things to the extent that having the page helps with a user navigating the encyclopedia. On this point I'm currently undecided. JMWt (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So, returning to think about this some more. WP:NLIST states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source further nothing that the entirety of the list does not need to be noted just the group of things. So it would appear that a simple way to establish if a list of learned societies is notable is to see if reliable sources consider them as a group. Here are some references that do that 1 and 2 and 3

Clearly Learned society is a notable idea and reliable sources have considered them as a group. It also seems likely that a list sorted by country consisting of many blue wikilinks would be useful for navigation - for example by a reader wanting to see which learned society exists in their country.

JMWt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe address the actual issue discussed in the nomination, which is not whether such a list could in principle be encyclopedic, but whether the list we have, based entirely on import from Wikidata, is appropriate to have? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are to make judgements against the policies and guidelines of en.wiki which I did. As far as I know, the fact that the list came from wikidata is irrelevant, but maybe there's a guideline or policy that I don't know about that you would like to point to? JMWt (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is not irrelevant here. Fact is that this list cannot be edited n WP. If one would want to change anything that is currently displayed in this list here, that is completely impossible and one has to go to WD and figure out how to make the desired change there! In addition, user-generated databases are not acceptable as sources and creating articles that are more or less automatically derived from such a database is a complete no-no. --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it can't be edited within en.wiki (which I didn't appreciate before) seems like an issue, albeit a solvable one if we don't like that.

But this thing about "user-generated" content seems to me like we are talking about two different things. Usually when we talk about "user-generated" sources we are pointing to a dif which has given a reference which is a blog or other unedited and self-published material. I don't think when we talk about it we usually are meaning wikidata.

Second, all lists on en.wiki are essentially user-generated because there are very few full lists in reliable sources for the majority of things we have lost pages for here. Also Wikipedia:NLIST doesn't even require a reliable source to show all of the things in the list.

So we are really just back to a complaint about the formatting that wikidata produces and whether that's suitable for a page on en.wiki. JMWt (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The entirety of this list is imported from an unreliable source. Having a list with this title might not be completely beyond the pale in principle, but doing it to a minimum acceptable standard, and to provide value above and beyond the existence of Category:Learned societies would require blowing this page up and starting over. XOR'easter (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to go with keep even if I don't like the way this list has been generated, on the grounds that AfD is not supposed to be clean-up. The concept of a learned societies as a group is definitely notable, for example in the context of the long-running bust-up between academia and academic publishers, where many academics feel that the journals published by learned societies are less-predatory/profiteering than those published by the big non-learned publishers. This table, and the very similar table at List of learned societies in the United Kingdom (and one for the US too) are also very useful navigational tables. Elemimele (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion is not that the subject doesn't merit an article nor that such a list is not useful for navigation. The point is that this list (and the US spinoff) is not edited on enWP, but on another website (i.e., Wikidata). WD is not a reliable source and cannot be used as a source. Even less should we import such unreliable content, that lacks overview by enWP editors. The current lists are unusable and to create an acceptable list, the current ones need to be blown up. --Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but in a sense I still disagree. The existing list is, at the very least, useful for navigation (which doesn't require reliable sourcing). If we blow it up, unless someone actually replaces it with a proper list, we've lost the navigation aspect. It really embarrasses me to disagree with you and David Eppstein. Elemimele (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Navigation requires reliable sourcing! We might not require a blue clicky linky number on every item (indeed, sometimes that would be silly), but we do need a basis for it that is worth building upon, not a data dump from a site no better than Wikipedia itself. A list full of items that can't be trusted is not a trustworthy navigational aid. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To me this makes no sense. What do you mean it is not a "trustworthy navigational aid" and what policy of en.wiki does that violate? The items are literally blue links, the topic is evidently notable. The only issue you appear to have is the difference between wikidata rearranging WP content, which is then recycled back into WP and on the other hand someone creating exactly the same content using standard WP coding notation.

And as far as I see it isn't a "data dump" either, multiple editors were involved in adding content. Once the precedent was set for using wikidata notation, other editors followed suit. So where's the data dump? JMWt (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue I have is that Wikipedia shouldn't be a Wikidata mirror. The items in this list are, as you said above, not editable within Wikipedia. The best case is that the data on Wikidata is derived purely from Wikipedia, and even that best case would just be a policy violation. And it doesn't matter whether the list is the work of one editor or many. Piecewise incorporation of unreliable data is still reliance upon an unreliable source. XOR'easter (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But put it this way: if we simply copy-pasted the (text version of the) entire thing and stuck square brackets round each item, it would be a totally valid navigational list, because all the items on it have proper articles, and that they are learned societies is obvious from the articles to which they link. Actually: would it be reasonable to do this to the list, so it's then editable from Wikipedia and detached from Wikidata? Elemimele (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried doing that as an experiment and can't see that it's possible. But that might be my incompetence. JMWt (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could have a go in my sandbox later today... Elemimele (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JMWt and Elemimele. Topic clearly suitable for a list, and it satisfies the navigation use of a list. That the list is now coming from Wikidata is indeed irrelevant, because the issue can be dealt with editing, and deletion policy states that, therefore, this cannot be a reason for deletion (and no, WP:TNT is not policy; as for essays, see then WP:TNTTNT). --cyclopia ^speak! 13:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a go at List_of_learned_societies_in_the_United_Kingdom which as David Eppstein pointed out suffers from exactly the same problems as the current list. I've converted it to a simple navigational table with minimal extra information, derived from the original automated list, and put it at User:Elemimele/List_of_learned_societies_in_the_United_Kingdom. Having gone through this process, I am convinced that the current list needs to be delinked from wikidata. I didn't check exhaustively row-by-row, but in the process of conversion it was blatantly obvious that some entries were weird or wrong, so it's utterly necessary that they should be editable, easily, by anyone here who finds that they're wrong. Elemimele (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did you do that? If it can be easily done and will not take too long, the simplest solution would appear to be to do this conversion to standard notation JMWt (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I copy pasted the whole table into Excel, then edited it to replace blank cells with at least something (hence all the silly asterisks) and to remove weird locations and dates, and the references (since I was aiming for a navigational list, deriving information from the target pages, and the references might be more complicated to carry across). Then I saved it as a .csv file, and used the tool website that's on my user-page to convert the .csv file to a wiki-formatted table. It would be harder work for the current article as it's subdivided into a whole load of mini-tables for each country, but I'm from the UK so I thought I'd try the UK version first! Elemimele (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northolt Branch Observatories

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

Appears to be a hobbyist observatories or something that has a handful of telescopes. After checking with Wikiproject Astronomy, I got a response that its not notable. Having done a basic WP:BEFORE, I'm not seeing this group meeting WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Science, Astronomy, Europe, Germany, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from the article creator): I am not going to vote because of WP:COI, but I'd like to point out that the article has been quite outdated. Uncle G has started to expand it a bit with more recent coverage (thanks!), and I hope it can get enough coverage to pass notability standards. Uncle G, I'm not sure if Lintott's book mentions the episode of The Sky at Night that featured the "discovery" of BepiColombo? It's the May 2020 episode ("Locked down but looking up"). That may be a useful addition. Renerpho (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G:, can you name the WP:THREESOURCES that you suggest as the bases for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG anchoring purpose? Graywalls (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To repeat my comments from WT:AST: "There are dozens of amateur observatories in just the London area that send asteroid observations to the Minor Planets Center e.g. [41]. I don't see anything particularly unusual about this one. Their telescopes are small hobbyist instruments; admittedly they indicate a serious hobbyist, but no more than you would find at a typical local astronomy society. I was unable to find any substantial coverage on Google Scholar or ADS. Of the references currently cited in the article, there are two unreliable blogs, a Facebook page, and a dead link. The NBC article has merely one sentence that mentions this observatory in passing. The only source with substantial coverage is the HNA article, which appears to be a German local newspaper; I cannot assess its reliability. Even if we accept HNA in good faith, a single source isn't enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG." A quick search did not lead me to additional reliable sources. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can point to substantial coverage that I've missed. Modest Genius ^talk 14:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: Yeah, unfortunately I ~~cannot~~ am not sure if I can add any further sigcov that goes beyond passing mentions. [42] (about 2024 YR4) mentions me with attribution, but again, that's just a mention, like many others that were published about that story in the past few weeks that quoted me. Renerpho (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Struck/edited, as I'm not so sure about this anymore. Renerpho (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We did a couple of TV interviews in the late 2010s and early 2020s, about what we do at NBO. I'll see if I can find recordings... Renerpho (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the owner and/or operator of the observatory, then you have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as well as with the article itself. I don't think we can weight the opinion of a user with a CoI. Posting 13 separate comments (more than everyone else combined) doesn't help your case either. Modest Genius ^talk 12:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: Yes. This discussion started with a self-report at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Renerpho. I had assumed you came here from there. Renerpho (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the disclosure, which seems very relevant here. I had not seen it, because it wasn't mentioned in this discussion. I was alerted to this AfD via WT:AST. Modest Genius ^talk 18:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[43] -- Interview from Feb. 5th, which got published today. It's not independent (considering it's an interview with me), but maybe it's worth adding, I don't know. Some pictures of the observatory around 2:40... some discussion of what we do, and what David Rankin has got to do with it. The interview with David (same playlist) is without my direct contribution, and he talks about me a bit, although I think he doesn't specifically name the observatory... Renerpho (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of them (2019),[44] discussing [45][46]. We did another longer one in 2018 from Northolt directly, but I can't find a recording right now. Renerpho (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more (2018);[47] not the one I was referring to there in the previous comment, I'm not sure that one is available online. Renerpho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a third one (from 2017).[48] Very brief one, and a bit improvised. It's no coincidence that all three come from the same YouTube channel. They're the only ones we talked to who seem to have their recordings available online. Renerpho (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIRS Be completely independent of the article subject. pieces in which the organization itelf is actively involved can not be considered independent. They're not forbidden from being cited, but they simply don't lend credit towards notability Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls: I think [49] passes that bar. I wasn't even aware that that story had been covered since 2020 (and outside Lintott's book which this is apparently based on) before searching for it now. Renerpho (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This NBC News story from 2018 goes into a bit more detail about what we do, even though it's also just a couple of sentences. The situation is similar for This Livescience article from 2019. This is an interview we did with QHYCCD, the producer of the camera we used at that time; it's not exactly independent coverage though.

There are a couple of papers related to our collaboration with IAWN, including [50][51][52]; only the Apophis campaign was one that we were involved in beyond just collecting data (compare, for example, the 2021 section at [53]). The 2022 campaign got some news coverage as well, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage (example). There's also this short paper, which unfortunately came just too late for the radar folks at Goldstone to adjust their pointing... Renerpho (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of amateur observatories in just the London area that send asteroid observations to the Minor Planets Center -- While technically true, most of them are inactive, or have never observed any Near Earth asteroids. Our most active station (Z80) is at #37 in the all-time list worldwide, professional observatories included.[54] (Some of the codes on Peter Birtwhistle's map don't appear in that list because they've never observed anything.) As of 9 February 2025, 2859 of all 151553 observations in discovery MPECs (or about 2%) come from that station.[55] Renerpho (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the BepiColombo (2020 GL2) story, this IFLScience article from 2024 may be a good addition. At least it has more than just a few sentences (the entire article is about something we did). Renerpho (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This popsci.com article goes into more detail about the 2019 story covered by Livescience that I mentioned above. It may pass sigcov. Renerpho (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outfox Magazine, a (now defunct?) Canadian magazine, ran a feature about us a couple of years ago, but I don't think that was ever available online. I could look up the details (issue number, pages etc.) if needed. Renerpho (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there were articles in some London newspapers around 2017-2019, about the observatory in general; I'm not even sure which ones. Either way, those will only have been available in print, I think (I've looked online and couldn't find anything). Renerpho (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage is limited to blip of coverage around 2018, it may fail WP:SUSTAINED Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be worth getting a bit more input on the nature of the sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EUROAVIA

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Association of Aerospace Students * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failing NORG. gidonb (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has existed since 2017 and the previous AfD was in 2010. Can we get a full search for recent sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Euroavia is an international body of aeronautics students, one of its chief aims being "to foster a spirit of co-operation among the future members of the aircraft industry".
— Royal Aero Club of the United Kingdom (1964). Flight: The Aircraft Engineer. Vol. 86. IPC Transport Press Limited. p. 311.

Euroavia is the Association of European Aeronautical Students, founded in Aachen in 1959, to foster social, cultural and professional links between students and thus engineers in Europe.
— "Euroavia rides again!". Aerospace. Vol. 8. Royal Aeronautical Society. 1981. p. 5.
Maybe it is the looking for recent sources in the World Wide Web for something founded in 1959 that is the problem. I can source that introductory sentence from 2 sources, which can replace the non-independent sources used for the same in this article. There appears to be non-English sourcing that should be investigated, too. There's something of some sort in a 1959 issue of Flugwelt. I suggest checking out the old aerospace industry magazines. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Railers

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

Defunct ABA team that fails WP:GNG, almost no sources are left besides some brief mentionings. Google only yields this Wikipedia page, and some brief articles by the Reading Eagle only about the team starting play or ceasing operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 15 February 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 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources already present in the article. The nom concedes other ghits from the Reading Eagle - a reliable source - which puts this over the GNG hump. schetm (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although The Reading Eagle is a reliable source, none of which are about the team itself, the article does not list any players or team records, it is just about the team's operation period. Not even Fandom or the stats websites have almost any of the Reading Railers players. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant for satisfying the GNG. schetm (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue, the article could be revised, but it may remain a permastub since many of the sources have faded away. this article seems to be the only other article that goes in depth about the Railers

https://www.readingeagle.com/2008/03/06/enter-the-reading-railers/ ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Social Norms Resource Center

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

A mere 3 google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speaking of hits, Google Books has hits. Are we sure we can not get SIGCOV from here? I’m seeing atleast two in the first page. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the frequent citing by scholarly sources and the national scope of the organization it meets WP:NGO. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the linked potential sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 03:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nufan

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

Per refs given, fails WP:N and WP:NORG. No in-depth independent coverage of this org. Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Crewe (2nd nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and United Kingdom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - AFC Crewe has been deleted twice at AFD, this is clearly an attempt to bypass that - I'd also consider blocking the creator for disruption. GiantSnowman 13:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ll delete my own account if you can evidence any signs of my disruption.
  I’ll reiterate what I said in a different discussion on the Nufan page; my creation of the nufan article was simply to prove that some admins have much higher influence over others and the nufan article being edited and accepted by the community until I referenced you guys into it does to at least a small extent prove this.
  Regardless of your opinion of me or of AFC Crewe the organisation Nufan has had significant coverage. Irrelevant of what the football elite admins deem significant, two bbc cites, a German TV interview and the article in The Manc newspaper is more than enough for an organisation to be deemed notable.
  So I suppose we will see how much influence a very few number of people have over the largest ‘community ran encyclopaedia’ In our history over the coming days.
  Regards Iblethebible (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Manc [56] mentions Nufan in one sentence, compare that with WP:GNG. The BBC radio refs mentions Nufan very little if at all, and consists of people connected to AFC Crewe talking about it. Such sources can have some WP:ABOUTSELF use, but they don't help the case for WP:N. I hope you'll be able to make an AFC Crewe article stick at some point, as I understand it they've done quite well, but this is not the way to go about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is almost tangible when I read a single-purpose account, putting this subject into a number of pages, saying how everyone else apart from that 1 person writing the single purpose all over Wikipedia is "a very few number of people" influencing Wikipedia. I'll take Gråbergs Gråa Sång's word for the BBC sources, since they aren't written sources. Checking out what The Manc is, it turns out to be a "social media publisher", which tallies with the source proffered being a bunch of Twitter posts. Other The Manc "news" turns out to be recitations of Twitter posts, too. So this is Twitter, Project:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter, regurgitated. The idea that if something is said on Twitter it must be true, does not make a source reliable. The best that I could find was something that was called the Nantwich News; but that turned out to state that it was a web log. I'd like to say that it could be considered reliable, but its offer of free press passes to whomever rocks up rather militated against the idea that its authors are skilled at fact checking. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, the BBC refs are about 3 min each. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s three minutes of British Broadcasting Corporation coverage * 2. One of the most respected and notable news groups in the world. Iblethebible (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But not about Nufan, correct? Fwiw, I mentioned length to indicate it won't take much effort to listen to them. 6 min is enough time to say a lot of interesting stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thankyou my mistake. Nufan is mentioned as the parent company of the club as is the structure etc. Iblethebible (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the club its structure and nufan were spoken about in depth on the largest sports television channel in Germany: Pro Sieben. Iblethebible (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made many edits on other pages and I'm trying to be a good contributor but sometimes it's hard when it feels like there is a lot of pushback. I have made edits on pages I can and I have created pages based on what I know about. I am really trying not to be a single purpose account. Iblethebible (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eight Schools Association

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

The ESA is an association of wealthy college-preparatory boarding schools in the Northeastern United States. I am concerned that this page does not meet WP:GNG because there is minimal direct coverage from outside, reliable sources, based on a review of Google News, Google Scholar, and the Wikipedia Library (inc. EBSCO and JSTOR). In addition, the material in the article (based primarily on sources and data from the member schools) suggests that the ESA has not been very active since 2013. Several members of the association attempted to start an athletics league, which used to have the Wikipedia page Six Schools League. The SSL page was deleted in July 2024 via WP:PROD, as there was no evidence that the league ever began play. I don't think there was any substantive discussion about the deletion then.

As far as I can tell, the only meaningful discussion of the ESA by an outside source appears to be a 2018 book about campus planning by architect and Princeton administrator Robert Spencer Barnett with photos of the ESA campuses. In his preface, the author states that "limiting the scope [of the book] to this group may seem overly restrictive," but "these schools embody most of the opportunities and challenges that exist at peer institutions."

Other than that, specific descriptions of the ESA in outside sources have generally been limited to offhand mentions in articles about member schools.

A 2015 Associated Press article about St. Paul's School (New Hampshire) that briefly refers to the ESA "a sort of Ivy League for prep schools."
A 2019 Quadrant Magazine article by William Rubinstein noting that Edward Said attended Mount Hermon, an ESA member. Rubinstein says that the ESA is "the American equivalent of the Clarendon schools including Eton and Harrow," without elaboration.
A 2011 Fast Company article about member school Choate, which states that the ESA is "an alliance of posh - and highly competitive - New England prep schools."
A 2007 article in Education Week saying that the Concord Review student journal is trying to get the ESA schools to subsidize the journal's continued production, and calling the ESA "a group of elite private schools in New England."

In addition, on February 6, I left a notability tag and a message on the article's talk page requesting help finding additional sources, with no response. Namelessposter (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools#Other school or university articles-related deletion discussions. Namelessposter (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Namelessposter (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am leaning towards weak keep because of this article and there are also several citations in the references that are not available online, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they exist with additional coverage.Darkm777 (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with that article you linked (which is already cited on the Wikipedia page) is that it's a piece in one of the member schools' student newspapers, so it's not exactly an outside source. It's also from 2010 and the scale of the ESA's work appears to have dropped off significantly since then. Namelessposter (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think that while the article does contain content, the overall notability of the subject simply isn’t there as I can’t really find any coverage relating to it so I think that it should be deleted. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isioma Humanitarian Foundation

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Previously moved to draft but moved back to mainspace by creator. Sources are Paid sources maybe in the future maybe notable. Jamiebuba (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When a newspaper article is quite favourable towards a subject, that's a hint – but no more than a hint – that money has changed hands. It could just be that the article's writer is inexperienced or too easily impressed by a celebrity. I don't think we can safely dismiss all the references as paid. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant and valid secondary sources to prove WP:ORGDEPTH. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it meets basic notability criteria. These two references[57][58] used in this article meet WP:INDEPENDENT and meeting WP:GNG. And the other three references meet WP:NBASIC. When the effect of all five references in the article is combined it meets at least minimum notability criteria. Karakpo (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are two RS sources with WP:SIGCOV and the others contain more than trivial mention of the organocation. Runmastery (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG such as Gurdian Nigeria, Vanguard News, Nigerian Tribune, Gurdian Nigeria etc. Drushrush (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments from Eastmain and Drushrush. Patre23 (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources presented by the (canvassed?) Keeps are suspect. A critical source analysis by an experienced editor would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking only at the sources mentioned in this AfD: they're definitely all very fluffy positive pieces, but that by itself isn't disqualifying if they're independent, reliable coverage.

The first source is The Guardian (Nigeria). We can find it at WikiProject Nigeria's list of reliable sources, with the comment "Sponsored posts are bylined as "Editor"". This one is bylined as "Guardian Nigeria". Not sure if this is a good sign (not "Editor") or a bad one (not a named person, like some of their more serious articles).
The second is Nigerian Tribune, which is listed in the same place as above as generally reliable without caveats.
The third is by Vanguard (Nigeria), listed under generally borderline with the comment "It may be usable depending on context. Involved in paid, promotional, and sponsored content by the newspaper, some of which is NOT explicitly marked as so."
The last source, from Qualitative Magazine, seems to be a special-purpose disability advocacy magazine. Not listed in the source analysis, doesn't have an article, a quick search doesn't give much of anything about them.

So (without any deeper knowledge of the Nigerian media landscape) I'd call this one high-quality source, and three possibly paid promotional sources. My inclination would be to delete unless someone can verify that the Guardian and Vanguard sources aren't paid or otherwise non-independent. Rusalkii (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above discussion about lack of significant coverage. Also, the vast majority of the thousands of charitable organizations are not notable, but that is no stigma as to their worthiness. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

Mart Helme

Organizations deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories