Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) at 07:45, 27 November 2024 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lay Observer for Northern Ireland.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. 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.

Purge page cache watch

Organizations deletion

Lay Observer for Northern Ireland

Lay Observer for Northern Ireland (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)

Can't really find any in-depth sources on this, though there is the potential to redirect (after adding a mention) either to Department of Finance (Northern Ireland) or maybe Ombudsman services by country, so thought I'd put it up for discussion instead of PROD or CSD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mardan Blue Star FC

Mardan Blue Star FC (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Oof the seven reference, 4 are databases, 2 don't even mention them and one has a paragraph w3hich says they were going to the finals one year. All of the content is derived from database factoids. Say the last played 10 years ago but never eves says what happened to them. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chand FC Layyah

Chand FC Layyah (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. All 6 of the references are just databases All of the content is derived from database factoids. Says the last played 11 years ago but never even says what happened to them. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was Withdrawn by nominator as improved, and due to removal of COI issues. BD2412 T 16:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHDT

WHDT (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)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The 2009 version was unambiguously advertising the station under its debut ownership; this version of the article about a generic Scripps station has removed the tone completely and though there needs some work, the template could have long been removed under looser standards in the past. Nate • (chatter) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how there can be a "speedy keep" case for content for which a COI tag is still justified after 15 years. There is no indication that this issue is ever going to be fixed. BD2412 T 02:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy keep per @MrSchimpf:. @BD2412: You might want to talk to my friend @Sammi Brie:. She might have suggestions on how to improve the article.
      Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "How to improve the article" misses the point. The article has been tagged a having this specific problem for 2/3 of the life of Wikipedia, and there is no sign that anyone will ever fix it. If it could be fixed, it already would have been. BD2412 T 02:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagree with this reasoning, by which we could conclude that there should be no new articles on things which have existed since the advent of Wikipedia or earlier. Deletion is not cleanup, and if the subject is notable, which it seems to be, then it should remain. Keep. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have tried to bring this article more in line with where it should be based on the sourcing available. WHDT is an odd bird as a digital-only station from the 2000s that got a lot of novelty coverage but turned into a diginet coatrack. Station founder Günter Marksteiner was probably the COI editor in 2009, too (User:Marksteiner). I appreciate the effort to sweep the COI out, but I feel BD2412 should have looked at the article now compared to then and evaluated whether the COI content still impaired the article's reason for existing above and beyond guidelines like notability. This article was already in better shape and on better foundations than many of the other articles recently sent to AfD for the same purpose, whose conditions are truly bordering on unsalvageable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Television. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article contain suitable sources and doesn't read like an advertisement to me. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What are you saying?? It looks like a usual American television article. I mean, Sammi Brie makes a good point on the fact that the article which is in AfD is in better shape of condition that articles which are on AfD for the same reason this one is. mer764KC / Cospaw⛲️ (He/Him | 💬Talk! • 📦Contributions) 11:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per @MrSchimpf and Mvcg66b3r: regardless of past COI implications, a full-power television stations like WHDT easily meets notability guidelines and doesn't merit a deletion. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 15:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Robotics Design Inc.

Robotics Design Inc. (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)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (for the time being)- COI hasn't been discussed on the talk page, as the COI box suggests should happen. Greglocock (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLAY: The Games Festival

PLAY: The Games Festival (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)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OCEAN Design Research Association

OCEAN Design Research 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)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Phoenix Economic Council

Greater Phoenix Economic 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)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Resistance Strategies Project

Drug Resistance Strategies Project (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)

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 22:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences and the Arts

North Rhine-Westphalian Academy of Sciences and the Arts (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 clearly lacks any WP:independent sources. Xpander (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otago Gold Rush (basketball)

Otago Gold Rush (basketball) (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 WP:GNG and WP:NORG DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch(talk) 08:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (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 haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this organisation in reliable third-party sources. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good grief: "ALGAO is the national body representing local government archaeological services on behalf of County, District, Unitary and National Park authorities. ALGAO co-ordinates the views of member authorities (110 in total) and presents them to government and to other national organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association on archaeological matters." Massively influential national body representing archaeology at every level of government in the UK. That's not notable? Do me a lemon! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be so, but has it translated to any usable sources? I came across this article because it's been unreferenced for thirteen years—one of the few remaining unreferenced archaeology articles left, by the way—and after some time searching I couldn't rectify that. I'm happy to be corrected but without sources we can't write an article, no matter how influential the subject. – Joe (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it may be a "massively influential national body" but where's the coverage? Google news comes up with 4 hits, 1st and 3rd being not indepth and 4th is a letter to a newspaper. There are plenty of google books hits but most seem 1 line mentions when I looked at the first few pages of results. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added sourcing to the article, one of the strongest cases of 'presumed notability' I've seen in a long while. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. However, you added nine references, and: [1] has just a single sentence stating what ALGAO is; [2], [3], [4], [5] are reports and publications of ALGAO itself; [6] is a press release about a report ALGAO produced; and [7] and [8] offer passing mentions in the context of a manufactured "war on woke" story; and [9] doesn't mention the subject. So we still have no significant coverage in independent sources. Notability does appear to have been presumed for the last decade, but that presumption has so far proved wrong. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trucks and Bus Company

AfDs for this article:
Trucks and Bus Company (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 WP:NCORP. I noticed this was nominated over 10 years ago with a decision to keep. However those sources fail WP:SIRS as they are not in-depth. The criteria for companies are much more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 06:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Action Democratic Movement Party (Namibia)

Action Democratic Movement Party (Namibia) (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 political party. I was able to find very little independent sources online, and headlines like this aren't exactly promising. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Society

AfDs for this article:
Mega 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)

Not a notable society, it does not meet WP:NORG. It has been through 5 previous deletion discussions - deleted 3 times, no consensus once and kept once (in 2008). There are multiple sources on the page that I have carefully reviewed (I have collapsed the source analysis as it is long). The TL;DR is that some of its members are notable (and have pages): particularly Marilyn vos Savant. However, all other mentions in the sources are limited to the society's entry qualification which is supposedly 1 in a million IQ range (but is not, in fact). Many sources repeat that claim - some more critically than others - but no secondary sources go beyond this and tell us what this society does, what its outputs are, what its remit or purpose is, etc. It is essentially a club with a difficult entry requirement that does nothing notable. The founder, Ronald K. Hoeflin has a page (and also a string of other non notable societies to his name). Redirect there would be one possible AfD outcome.

Source Analysis
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
      The society's own web page, and in addition, their journal, Noesis, are clearly primary sources and also lack independence for the same reason. It is clear that any historian who wanted to write a history (a secondary source) about this society would find a gold mine in the pages of Noesis. However we cannot use that for a tertiary encyclopaedic article. We must wait for the historians first.    
  • Ellen Graham (1992-04-09). "For Minds of Mega, The Mensa Test Is a Real No-Brainer -- Rival IQ Societies Bicker Over Scores and Styles; Cindy Brady's Velocity". The Wall Street Journal.
   Cannot see any indication it is not independent   I have given it a yes on the assumption that the copies available [12] are what was published, but I have not been able to find the original yet to verify this.   This one goes a little further than most articles, but it is really about what Mega Society is not. It verifies its claims, and then subjects them to some scrutiny. The Mega Test, he says, measures "doggedness and reference skills." But again, there is really no ORGDEPTH here. It is all about who is allowed to join and nothing about what the society does. Nothing about outputs or impact or anything that would normally make a society notable. All we really see is it is notable for using a home made test to allegedly find the super intelligent (and doesn't really). That is all.    
  Small concerns about the similarity between articles (see below) but not enough to doubt the independence of this excellent source.     The first and lst of these have essentially the same text about the society despite being different authors. It would look like plagiarism, except that what is included is rather limited. Basically it is that the society claims to represent the 99.9999th percentile. The first one also mentions Langdon. Beyond the entry requirement, there is nothing about what the society is or does, nor history, nor activity. There is no in depth description of the society. It is basically just "pass this test, join this exclusive society". The first article adds "Critics question whether IQ tests measure intelligence accurately" but there is nothing more critical or in depth than this. None of these meet WP:ORGDEPTHn and you cannot create a page about an organisation based entirely upon its entry requirements.    
    The work is reliable although this uncritical reporting does not do them credit. Nevertheless they get a pass for reliability in general.   No ORGDEPTH. The Omni test was written by Ronald Hoeflin, founder of the Mega Society, a high-I.Q. club that makes Mensa look like preschool. Mensa membership is open to I.Q.s above 133 -- the smartest 2 percent of the American population. The Mega entrance requirement is an I.Q. of 176 or above, the 99.999th percentile, or one in a million people. Uncritical, errant, but certainly nothing from which an article can be written.   Secondary for the Mega Society although it is a news article with some primary information.  
      The only information about the society is that it has 16 members and entry is through the mega test. The remainder of the information is about Maxim and Langdon (running an unlisenced IQ test).   News report. Primary for the news reporting and there is no analysis.  
  vos Savant was writing on behalf of teh society, of which she was a member. Omni collaborated with the society and published their quiz. This is therefore clearly not independent.   I presume vos Savant would be reliable about the society.   6 pages on the society, although a large chunk is just data. However this would be more the kind of thing you could write an article about, if it were independent and secondary.   vos Savant is providing the societies lines in this article. That is a primary source.  
      The article is about Ronald Hoeflin and the Mega Society gets one passing mention as one of his many societies.    
    It's a gossip column. But at least it states its sources.   Passing mention. Still, Kevin Langdon, editor of the Mega Society Web site (the Mega Society is to Mensa what Ruth Bader Ginsburg is to Harriet Miers), while acknowledging the limitations of psychometric testing, offers a candidate for the honor [of 2nd most intelligent American]: Bob Dylan.    
    The article contains a small error. Vos Savant's 228 IQ was measured in childhood and is not her IQ now. It was measured at a time where it was actually a quotient divisible by age. Children with very high IQ scores see those scores regress towards the mean (whilst still remaining above average) as they get older. However this does not detract from the overall reliability of the newspaper.   Dr. Frank Luger is a member and membership was 30 at that time. That is all. Nothing about the society. Certainly not WP:ORGDEPTH. No inherited notability even if Luger were notable, but he has no Wikipedia page, so apparently is not.   It is news reporting about the membership. WP:PRIMARYNEWS although that is moot for this purpose as it fails on SIGCOV.  
  Information in Noesis makes it clear that Mega Society approached the Guinness Book of Records over the listing. Thus it is not independent.     Talks about Vos Savant as most intelligent person. Mentions that she and 2 others are members of this society. No information about the society.   Depends what you use it for. It is primary for the record, secondary for other uses.  
  • Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. And what is that makes Marilyn vos Savant so uniquely qualified to answer such questions? There is only one reason: she is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest IQ ever recorded. Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable.
       All we have is information about vos Savant, with this passing mention: Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable.    
  • Roger D. Carlson (1991). Daniel J. Keyser; Richard C. Sweetland (eds.). Test Critiques (Volume VIII ed.). PRO-ED. pp. 431–435. ISBN 0-89079-254-2.
       This is looking at the Mega Test itself. It is a thorough look at the test (summing up by calling it number pulverisation) but it has no coverage of the eponymous society.    
  • Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7.
       Does not mention the society at all   N/A - no mention  
  • Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Pergamon. p. 301. ISBN 978-0-08-043796-5. norm tables that provide you with such extreme values are constructed on the basis of random extrapolation and smoothing but not on the basis of empirical data of representative samples.
     The source is reliable even though the one sentence mention contains an error.   Single sentence on page 113. All it says is entry requirement is a 176 IQ (one in a million). That is all. And that turns out to be wrong.    
  • Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38. ISBN 9780521739115. [Curve-fitting] is just one of the reasons to be suspicious of reported IQ scores much higher than 160
       Does not mention the society at all   N/A - no mention  

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. An old organization, well-known within the high-IQ society community, and a real curiosity from the point of view of the history of psychometrics in America. A number of its members were notable -- some even notorious -- in their own right: Rosner, vos Savant, Langan, Raniere... I understand that Paddles the cat is better covered by secondary sources, but I prefer an encyclopedia that has more than well-attested trivialities to offer. Let us preserve knowledge, however niche, let us not sacrifice this article. K-trivial (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The high-IQ world has only a few notable societies. Each of those listed on Ronald K. Hoeflin's page is both notable and active. I am unsure of the impetus behind the constant recommendations to delete valuable information on such a topic. UnitsReceived (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC) — UnitsReceived (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    ...few notable societies. Each of those listed on Ronald K. Hoeflin's page is both notable and active How should I interpret that claim in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Society (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top One Percent Society and One-in-a-Thousand Society and Epimetheus Society? Only the Omega Society article hasn't been deleted yet, because it has yet to be written. Polygnotus (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you are not a member of any of these societies or others, such as MENSA or the Triple Nine Society. The Epimetheus Society, Prometheus Society, and Mega Society are widely known to the vast majority of members of these organizations. Multiple external sources discuss each of them, and given that non-members do not have access to the actual content, forums, discussions, or events taking place daily, it is impossible for non-members to know how active each society truly is. UnitsReceived (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood what I wrote. You claimed that each of the societies listed on that article were notable. I showed that 4/6 articles were deleted for lack of notability, and one has not been written yet. Polygnotus (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an argument for the article to be kept. If what you're saying is true, it's not verifiable, which means that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is wholly irrelevant. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and WP:SALT to Ronald K. Hoeflin. Seconding all of the points made by Polygnotus, Jjazz, and Sirfurboy. Throughout this article's long history very little constructive editing has occurred, and a non-insignificant amount of work has been put in to keep a few IP editors' contribs either NPOV, as well as the removal of a level of citation overkill that makes it extremely hard to claim good-faith contributions. I have also seen these editors then insert links to the page on many articles related to human intelligence generally, as well as some straight up incoherent additions of it. It is remarkable how most of the IPs/new users that have decided this article's survival is absolutely critical not only write in a similar tone (ie. thinly veiled condescension despite inability to engage with basic standards for contributing to articles constructively) but also similar tactics (ie. severe citation overkill, then an invocation of a good-faith defense when questioned on the irrelevance of their additions). I genuinely do not know what motivates a claim such as the above, that EVERY society noted on Hoeflin's page is notable and active. I have seen little to demonstrate that Mega Society was ever really "active" as a notable organisation given its member count and skeptical tone of the coverage it received (specifically in regard to the test itself, the only qualifier for membership) a few decades ago. It seems rather obvious to both Hoeflin and contemporaneous sources that the test itself provides dubious efficacy and has an unstandardized nature. IQ tests as a whole are not direct proxies for intelligence, and an IQ test that didn't try to conform to the format of its peers, rejected any form of standardisation and outside feedback, and was used as an admission tool for a group of members that hardly cracked the double digits, should be subject to even more skepticism and scrutiny. It does not make for the foundation of an article that is of use to any reader at present. Transgenderoriole (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and WP:SALT to Ronald K. Hoeflin per points already raised. The society is mentioned in reliable sources, but the references aren't really about the society. Hoeflin is maybe notable, as are other reported members, but the society itself is not. CAVincent (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The three most well-established and oldest 4-sigma-plus IQ societies, despite being mentioned in reliable sources, are not considered notable? To each his own. UnitsReceived (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An account created for the purpose of commenting on this AfD is not considered credible? To each his own. CAVincent (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article meets Wikipedia's guidelines as: (1) the subject has been discussed in detail by numerous sources, and (2) the sources consist of reliable mainstream publications with editorial oversight that are independent of the subject, as evidenced by the following Source Analysis:
Second Source Analysis
Number Source Comments
1 Mega Society. "The Mega Society". Retrieved 10 August 2023. Primary source supports membership count.
2 Ellen Graham (1992-04-09). "For Minds of Mega, The Mensa Test Is a Real No-Brainer -- Rival IQ Societies Bicker Over Scores and Styles; Cindy Brady's Velocity". The Wall Street Journal. Article in the Wall Street Journal discusses the Mega Society extensively. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
3 Dean Keith Simonton (2012-11-01). "The Science of Genius". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-11-25. Article in Scientific American. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
4 Mega Society (August 2005). "Constitution of the Mega Society". Retrieved 2006-07-25. Primary source.
5 G. Miller (May 1, 2012). "Get smart". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-10-06. Article in Scientific American discusses the Mega Society. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
6 Anderson, Jack (November 28, 1988). "Is 176 IQ Enough in White House?". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 7, 2024. Article in The Washington Post discusses the Mega Society and several members. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
7 Joshua Harris (1997-05-14). "Let's See, Complain Is to Club As Order Takeout Is to Diner". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2024-10-06. Article in The Wall Street Journal discusses the Mega Society and several members. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
8 Lena Groeger (2012-11-01). "When High IQs Hang Out". Scientific American. Retrieved 2024-10-06. Article in Scientific American about High IQ Societies. Discusses Mega Society and quotes a member. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
9 Miyaguchi, Darryl. "A Short (and Bloody) History of the High I.Q. Societies". Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests. Retrieved November 26, 2024. Website with history of IQ societies.
10 Lemley, Brad (March 17, 1985). "The Mind of Genius". Washington Post Magazine. pp. 14, 23. Article in Washington Post Magazine. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
11 "The Mega Society". Retrieved 16 May 2011. Primary source.
12 McWhirter, Norris; McFarlan, Donald (1988). The Guinness book of records : 1989. Internet Archive. Enfield, Middlesex : Guinness Pub. ISBN 978-0-85112-878-8. Source of varying credibility over the years.
13 Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 22. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Book critical of Mega Society and intelligence testing in general.
14 Roger D. Carlson (1991). Daniel J. Keyser; Richard C. Sweetland (eds.). Test Critiques (Volume VIII ed.). PRO-ED. pp. 431–435. Critique of Hoeflin’s tests. Does not appear to mention Mega Society directly.
15 Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 8. Is meant to support criticism, but does not provide criticism of tests with a ceiling above 160.
16 Perleth, Christoph; Schatz, Tanja; Mönks, Franz J. (2000). "Early Identification of High Ability". In Heller, Kurt A.; Mönks, Franz J.; Sternberg, Robert J.; et al. Supports criticism. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.
17 Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38. Supports criticism. This source is WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT.

Robin (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC) — Robin82346 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Did you create this account and make some edits specifically to !vote in this AfD? It sure looks a hell of a lot like this account was created in response to CAVincent's comment. Polygnotus (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your question. To address your concern, I did not create this account or participate in this discussion as a response to anyone's comment. My contributions to this AfD and Wikipedia as a whole are made with the same goal as everyone else's here: to uphold the principles of neutrality and thoughtful discussion.
That said, I would like to take a moment to highlight the importance of focusing on the merit of arguments rather than speculating on motivations or resorting to tactics that could be perceived as dismissive, particularly when directed at women or any group. Intimidation—whether intentional or inadvertent—has no place in collaborative spaces like this. I encourage us to engage constructively and keep the discussion centered on the issues at hand. Robin (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. Polygnotus (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing the link. However, I’m not sure how referencing an essay, which represents the opinions of contributors rather than established Wikipedia policies or guidelines, contributes constructively to improving the article. If you have specific input or suggestions grounded in policies or guidelines that can help make the article better, I’d be happy to hear them. Robin (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robin, Welcome to Wikipedia. Did you see the source analysis in the nomination? I collapsed it to hide the table. See the green bar. Click the "show" link and you will see that I have been through these. The principal problem, and one you have not addressed in your table here, is that these do not show WP:SIGCOV at WP:ORGDEPTH as required for an organisation. See WP:SIRS. This also explains that the primary sources, while useful in their way, do not count towards notability. All we have in secondary sources about the society are the entry requirement. There is nothing about what the society actually is, does or why it is notable. Nothing we can write the article from. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia women's national under-21 volleyball team

Indonesia women's national under-21 volleyball team (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)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This seemed to originally be for the under-18 volleyball team until it was changed to under-21 and information removed for seemingly zero reason (unsourced but still, edit summary was not used). Although even with that, it still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only sources I could find have passing mentions. Procyon117 (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural entities with sole naming rights

List of cultural entities with sole naming rights (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 hodgepodge of venues which have a naming rights sponsor. No apparent notability or sources to tie them together. No incoming links. See also a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sponsored sports venues. 162 etc. (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Star FC

Eleven Star FC (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 WP:GNG. Club only existed for one season and does not have WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magwayen Creative Scholars' Guild

AfDs for this article:
Magwayen Creative Scholars' Guild (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 WP:GNG, lack of credible sources. Cites are all blog sources. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Party of Ukraine

Marxist–Leninist Party of Ukraine (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 since 2009. The external link does not refer to this party, at least per machine translation. Only references I can find to this party are referring or reproducing this article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Marmitons

Les Marmitons (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, although it's existed for nearly 2 decades, it's promotional in tone, and likely a copyright violation of [13]. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 13:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

APFIC Objective and Key Achievements

APFIC Objective and Key Achievements (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)

Entire article is written like a promotion. Only source mentioning APFIC is its own page and a document at fao.org, its parent organization. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan General Labour Union

Moroccan General Labour Union (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 WP:GNG/WP:NPROFIT. Cannot find any sourcing that confirms the existence of this trade union other than Facebook. Appears to be a single person as acting as a union. Referred to in a number of locations as "Union générale marocaine du travail" (for example, this Danish trade union report on Morocco, but which cites French Wikipedia as source). I also see some reports referencing the French name, but this has been confused with the long establised UGTM (Union générale des travailleurs du Maroc). I've not been able to do an extensive search in Arabic, but French and English draw blanks. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

btw the UGMT referred to in the Danish report is not the same body. That was founded in 1960 and is notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, see page 31 of the Ulandssekretariatet report, citing French Wiki, last entry on the table, it's referring to the UGMT, not the UGTM. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B & H Tool Works

B & H Tool Works (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 came across this in WP:NOV24. I'm not seeing coverage that would indicate a WP:NCORP pass. This is really just an interview with an employee. This piece is much better coverage-wise, but I'm hesitant to use an editorial without a byline to support a NCORP pass. This is partially a discussion with the owner and partially a statement that it received a grant.

I just don't think the above is enough to indicate a WP:NCORP pass. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparently, this was an AFD in 2006 but I can not locate the previous deletion discussion. But this makes this discussion not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for locating that AFD, Hog Farm. I've noticed that in the early years, if there was no consensus, the outcome would be marked as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

PS Klabat Jaya Sakti

PS Klabat Jaya Sakti (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 WP:GNG. No evidence of secondary coverage that shows WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that according to WP:SPORTCRIT; Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. None of sources in the article and this AfD provide reports beyond routine coverage, such as information about the team itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of horse breeds in DAD-IS

List of horse breeds in DAD-IS (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 notability for standalone lists and WP:GNG. This article is a table of entries drawn from a single online database, one which isn't a reliable source itself (see Talk:DAD-IS § Evaluation concludes DAD-IS is generally unreliable for horse topics). Neither this article nor its associated article DAD-IS shows any sources which are independent of the subject, and certainly no significant coverage. All citations are published by FAO, the host of the database. Also fails under WP:NOTCATALOG.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a list of things listed in a list that's 'Generally unreliable' and not an RS? That's going to go down well, isn't it? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, do not delete, obviously – it's comprehensively sourced and meets WP:NLIST. The FAO is the single most significant world-level agency collecting and publishing data on all aspects of agriculture and agricultural resources, including animal and plant genetic resources, water, forestry and climate; its databases and publications are widely and frequently cited in academic publications. But even if it weren't, there's nothing to stop anyone from adding other sources to the list. A good one to start with might be this: Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944 – in fact I'll go and add that in a moment. Did the nominator even actually do a WP:BEFORE search for additional sources?
I created this page (as a very new user) in 2011 because I'd been told that the List of horse breeds could not contain red links, and wanted to see what horse breed articles were missing from the project. I note that there's no problem with red links in most of our other lists of livestock breeds (e.g., cattle, chickens, donkeys, goats, geese, pigs, sheep, turkeys, water buffalo – but not ducks). I agree that the page title is not optimal, and suggest one of two options to remedy that without losing the content:
Either's fine with me. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers: You are arguing for another page, but not this one. Nothing in Mason's contributes to this list-article's notability. If this list was simply a tool for your work, then it should be in your userspace.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There has been some confusion. I am not arguing about the notability of the database, but that the information contained within the database is not a reliable source for much of anything because of the nature of its data collection and zero oversight of the database contents, making the database a self-published source. The database itself is notable; the data in it is not. Therefore making a static copy of the database contents (which is this list-article) is both presenting information as reliable (which it isn't) and is just a mirror of a database (see What Wikipedia is not). If someone wants to get this information they can, and should, go directly to the database and get it themselves.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Farm Bureau

Illinois Farm Bureau (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)

WP:BEFORE reveals no ostensible notability. Article is almost exclusively unsourced and written by the organization themselves (user 'Ilfb1916' clearly violates WP:ISU and implies this is the subject itself), being functionally a billboard instead of a resource with any encyclopedic merit. IP editor who removed PROD did so under the justification of "Useful links and relevance due to member and partner organizations", but this is complete nonsense as it pertains to notability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Uh... Wow. I was not expecting this to take that direction. The WP:BEFORE I'd done for this organization was two days ago, so this wasn't even on my radar when I nominated it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to the NPR story given already above the IFB is the largest insurer of farms in the state of Illinois. It's a significant company with a lengthy history. There is significant coverage in the following including a book about the company:
Some thoughts on these sources:
  • The first two (the Agricultural History article and the LSU Press book) are both by the same author, Nancy Berlage. Collectively these would count as one source (since they are not intellectually independent of each other).
  • Dan Leifel and Norma Maney both worked for the Illinois Farm Bureau for decades, Leifel as general counsel and Maney as an executive assistant. Their history of the IFB cannot be considered an independent source.
  • Can you point to what in the Clampitt book refers to the Illinois Farm Bureau? I can't access the text but the snippets available via Google Books indicate it's only index mentions, not WP:SIGCOV. Would be happy to be proven wrong if you can share how Clampitt discusses the subject. (If it was pulled from this Illinois historiography article, it's clear the author is talking about the Maney and Leifel book, not saying Clampitt covered the IFB in her book: Agriculture remains a critical part of the Illinois economy. A recent centennial history of the Illinois Farm Bureau offers a broad look at state agriculture including the post World War II period. Cynthia Clampitt wrote a history of midwestern corn production that includes work on Illinois.)
  • The "NPR" story I linked above is actually a local radio story from an NPR affiliate and doesn't pass the WP:AUD test.
  • I paged through many of the JSTOR listings and didn't find any additional WP:SIGCOV. Apart from the Berlage article above, they all appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.
Based on this analysis, I see only one WP:SIRS source to pass WP:NORG. Open to reviewing more if you can supply additional examples. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bahçeşehir Koleji S.K.. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acıbadem Üniversitesi S.K.

Acıbadem Üniversitesi S.K. (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)

Although there are 9 sources on the Turkish article some are trivial and others no longer exist. So I doubt this team is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asociación Civil

Asociación Civil (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 of unclear utility. As written, it consists of a single sentence stating that the title is just the Spanish-language translation of another term that we have a much longer article about, so it's essentially functioning as a dictionary definition. Since I don't speak Spanish, I suppose it might be possible that there's some nuance missing here -- is an "asociación civil" a particular kind of non-profit organization that does a very particular thing, while other non-profit organizations might also exist that aren't asociacións civil, so that there's a distinction not being properly communicated here? -- but if that's the case then the article would need to explain and contextualize and reliably source that distinction, and if asociación civil really is just a straight synonym for all non-profit organizations then we just don't need this to be a separate article at all.
In actual practice, all this really does in its current form is attract spam-like attempts to use it as a directory listing of the Wikipedia articles about (or offsite weblinks of) individual organizations, which is not what Wikipedia is for and has been stripped.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more knowledge of hispanophone cultures than I've got can expand the article with content showing that there's a substantive distinction in meaning between "asociación civil" and "non-profit organization", but we don't need it at all if it's really just a straight-up dicdef of a straight-up translation. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Marketing Association

Arts Marketing 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)

Declined prod. A search for sources found nothing indepth. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 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, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: perhaps one more week will make a consensus more clear...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The coverage in these highly specialised marketing books is entirely trivial, passing mentions (mentions in people's CVs and the like) every one. The mention of the Arts Marketing Association in scholarly books about Arts Marketing should not really be a surprise (and no prejudice at all to the nominator for their WP:BEFORE), but there is no sustained or significant coverage in ANY of these titles to merit a pass of WP:GNG let alone NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 13:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although there are mentions in books, they are mostly passing mentions. Even the reference in the Routledge Companion looks like one line, in a contributor's biography. I'd have expected more coverage in that book if the organisation's activities are notable. This, about their mentoring scheme, looks like the most extended coverage, but reads WP:ROUTINE to me. I have looked at the Google scholar results, of which the most substantial looks as if it is in the book Creative Arts Marketing; the introduction is by the then chair of the AMA, but apart from that the coverage is mostly in one paragraph and mainly gives the number of members in 2001 and a bit about training and events. It does mention that the organisation was created from two other local or regional orgs, so possibly there's a bit more out there in pre-internet sources, but I'm not too hopeful. I did look at the British Newspaoer Archive - I don't have full access, but the search results were fairly minimal. The significant coverage found by Exclusive Editor in classical-music.uk reads like a press release and also looks like routine coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change

Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (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 WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage of the organization. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the head communication office at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC). The Center is an international research center that collaborates in many international projects and initiatives, such as
-- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have selected us as the Focal point for Italy
-- the European Environment Agency for which we coordinate the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Aaptation and LULUCF (ETC CA)
-- we provide climate predictions and forecasts for Copernicus Climate Services and for Copernicus Marine Service
-- we have research collaborations with leading research centers around the world, the latest one is with Princeton University High Meadows Environmental Institute
We will add this information, other international relevant activities, and related sources to the page. I hope this is enough to maintain the article on Wikipedia. Buonocoremauro (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Buonocoremauro. Thanks for that info. Please take a look at the message to you and User:Manusantagata79 I am about to leave on the talk page of the article about some guidelines English Wikipedia has about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which might seem strange to academics or might be different on Italian Wikipedia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

None of the sources you added help with WP:NCORP notability. C F A 💬 15:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have now added [1]
I don’t speak Italian but hopefully someone from the Italy project can take a look Chidgk1 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, but that's one source. We'll need more than one to show notability. C F A 💬 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.
  • Weak keep I’m seeing a large number of climate science books and journal articles citing data/research generated by the CMCC internationally in examining EBSCOE, JSTOR, google books etc. There a lot of passing mentions of the organization in that kind of literature. While technically not enough to meet WP:NCORP this is a case where I think the topic is encyclopedic based on its broad scholarly impact along the reasoning at WP:NACADEMIC. Lastly, it’s possible there are foreign language sources not easily found in searching in English as this organization does research globally. I grant you that this is not the strongest argument, but international scope is covered in our WP:SNG at WP:NONPROFIT. I'm not really seeing any benefit in deleting an article on a government funded/founded climate research organization attached to multiple Italian universities.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NONPROFIT says Organizations are usually notable if ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. and The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization., but if this is an IAR keep I'm not going to debate it. C F A 💬 00:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Categories

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Organizations&oldid=1259825174"