Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Institute of Pensions Managers

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Institute of Pensions Managers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was proposed for deletion as Bad faith article creation, every source is either primary, dead, or lacks significant coverage and I could not find any better sources. PROD was contested with no explanation other than potentially controversial deletion, but I don't see how. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at least as it now stands, it fails to assert clear grounds of notability, and appears to fail WP:GNG. The body does provide some nationally-relevant functions, but does not seem to rise to the level required to have its own article, and I do not see a suitable article into which to merge. I'm not sure re. bad faith, as asserted - more evidence for this should be provided - but the writing was poor, bordering on "off". 12 years and no real improvement is not a good basis for retention. SeoR (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ignoring the apparent WP:COI, WP:PROMO, WP:NOTWEBHOST issues, it is unclear how the subject meets WP:NORG or WP:SIGCOV. In terms of the latter, a search (for example) in the Irish Times or the Irish Examiner or RTÉ.ie returns no coverage of the subject in national news sources. That we are relying almost ENTIRELY on the subject's own website (to establish the basic facts and the context we do have) reinforces the lack of reliable non-primary sources required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. (A merge or redirect to the UK "sister" org seems like an inappropriate alternative to deletion. Not least as that org/article/content is also questionable).... Guliolopez (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2022 (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.