Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I.I.M.U.N. (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus‎. While numerically there's slightly greater weight for delete, the single keep contribution is far more detailed than the nomination and the interventions waving at ADMASQ and per nominator. As such, there's effectively two detailed but opposite views regarding notability, neither of which fully refutes the other. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sourcing in this article is like a flea market: cluttered, uneven, but with real value among the items. Roughly two-thirds of the 33 references are clearly low-quality, promotional, or dead links and should be trimmed per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. However, 6 to 7 are solid pieces from reliable national sources including The Times of India, The Economic Times, DNA India, Forbes India, and India Today, offering independent coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. This is a clear keep and a strong cleanup candidate under WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've performed a WP:HEY cleanup: removed all promotional and unverified claims, trimmed weak sources, and ensured the article is now built on a solid core of high-quality, independent sources, with minor supporting references for individual events. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete change !vote since redirect target no longer exists Merge to Rishabh Sanjay Shah as per WP:ATD and redirect. First, fair play to HerBauhaus for the extensive cleanup, the article is much better now. But unfortunately, I cannot locate any reference that provides in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *organization*. Most of the references have a couple of sentences describing the organisation at most, all saying much the same thing, that the organization is involved in organising conferences or has been involved in marches or other movements. A lot of the articles are dedicated to a participant in a conference (might go to notability of the participant?) or one of the conferences (might go to notability of a particular event?) or to the founder (might go to notability of the founder?). We even have stuff about the find-a-bed program (might go to notability of the find-a-bed movement?). But if the topic is the organization, then NCORP criteria says we require references that establish the notability of the organization. I suggest the material here, which overlaps extensively with the existing material in the target, can easily be merged. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I'm a bit unsure about the merge suggestion. The article appears to meet WP:GNG, with broad, independent coverage from sources like The Economic Times, Forbes India, and India Today. Even when the founder or events are mentioned, isn’t the organization itself the recurring subject? Wouldn’t that satisfy notability under GNG, regardless of WP:NCORP? And since the content focuses on the organization's activities rather than a personal biography, wouldn’t merging to the founder risk WP:COATRACK concerns? HerBauhaus (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your question contains a flawed premise which, when pointed out, will reveal the answer. There isn't a "regardless of WP:NCORP" because GNG and NCORP are essentially the same thing. NCORP shows how the general notability guidelines (GNG) *must* be applied for companies/organisations. Or put another way - an article about a company can't meet GNG and not meet NCORP and if you think the article does, it must be only because you're applying the guidelines incorrectly for this topic area and you must be ignoring the NCORP guidelines (which are instructions on *how* the general GNG guidelines are to apply). HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Merging this page with Rishabh Sanjay Shah would be pointless, as he was previously involved in hijacking other pages, leading to their eventual deletion through the AFD process. For more details, visit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rishabh_Shah. Charlie (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Significant independent coverage from major Indian reliable sources, including The Economic Times, Forbes India, DNA India, and India Today, establishes clear notability under both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Cleanup has fully addressed prior issues of sourcing and tone. Wikipedia’s notability guidelines require significant coverage, not exhaustive or exclusively in-depth coverage. Topics from non-Western contexts must be evaluated under the same standard as all others. This article meets policy and should be retained. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources are WP:ADMASQ/WP:RSNOI. Charlie (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2025 (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.