Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Points of interest related to Organizations on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations/archive 2
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations/archive 3

Australian Guild of Music & Speech (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)

Exam fails WP:GNG. Sources are nothing but primary sources. GTrang (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Education, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Clinical Sexology (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)

Unreferenced other than to its own website. Fails WP:GNG, lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:ORG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Education, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Same reasoning as the nominator. Any content on this org could easily be rolled into the article on William Granzig. Leonstojka (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balochistan Freedom Declaration (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)

Clearly WP:NOTNEWS, only handfull of coverage by trash Indian media, which are currently in run for TRP. This topic is not enought notable to have a stand alone article. GrabUp - Talk 05:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Del per nomination. One "writer cum leader" sending a letter is hardly encyclopaedic.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Time will tell if it needs an article, but not yet. CoconutOctopus talk 17:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – No standalone notability demonstrated. The author themself has no standalone notability per WP:BIO, so why would their works be given more weight than those of other Baloch separatists and writers? Yue🌙 22:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artforum Culture Foundation (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)

Has not had any references added for at least eight years. References section is empty, with only three external links. Carlinal (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. As noted in the nom, it has been unsourced for years. A BEFORE search only reveals Wikipedia mirrors, user-submitted content and primary sources either from the foundation itself, or from other organizations or artists that the foundation has donated to. They have a noble mission, but this is not the same as being in itself notable, and charitable foundations do not have inherent notability. If fully independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage can be found, I would consider changing my !vote. Netherzone (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Soldier Research Program (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)

Promotional, entirely self published sources, poor quality article, should be moved to draftspace or deleted. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Science, Computing, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources are definitely not self published (WP:ABOUTSELF). Any source that begins with ISBN, ISSN or DOI is not self published. I don't see anything promotional here. — Maile (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Strictly speaking, that's not correct. Anyone can get an ISBN for a self-published book. Also preprint platforms allow you to get a DOI on any submission. MarioGom (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do not see any self-published sources, I do see some issues with promo/NPOV and general MOS issues. The paragraphsThe Santos simulation platform was developed from the ground up. Using the 215 DOF and based on the use of optimization based methods that enable cost functions to drive the motion, the numerical algorithm drives the motion to predict joint variables across time (also called joint profiles) and subject to a number of constraints. For example, predicting gait of any body type is now possible. Similarly, any task can be modeled and simulated using this approach. Xiang, Yujiang, Jasbir S. Arora, and Karim Abdel-Malek. "Hybrid predictive dynamics: a new approach to simulate human motion." Multibody System Dynamics 28.3 (2012): 199-224. andOver time, the Santos family has grown to incorporate a variety of different body scans to provide a range of models that include our female version, Sophia, and a broad array of different body shapes, types, and sizes. Our research is currently being extended to allow multiple digital human models to interact with each other to complete tasks cooperatively. … Santos was built using state-of-the-art technologies adapted from robotics, Hollywood, and the game industry. VSR research continues to grow in its dynamic capabilities, physiology, and intelligent behaviors through integration of Artificial Intelligence, design optimization, physics-based modeling, and advanced, multi-scale physiological models. stick out to me as being inappropriate. However, the actual subject (VSRP and related inventions) do appear to pass GNG. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Engineering & Science College (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 College. Lacks secondary sources. Hardly any online presence of this organization. Fails GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, Engineering, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centrist Party of Canada (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)

Fringe political party that fails WP:ORG. I could not find in-depth coverage in reliable sources beyond routine election coverage. This includes candidate naming and reports of vote totals. There is no obvious redirect or merge target either, as nobody in the party leadership has an article or is notable per WP:BIO. Yue🌙 03:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 03:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete 0.0% of the vote is clearly not a major force politically. --hroest 03:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  in the latest 2025 elections, they had fielded 19 candidates and got 4,147 votes. For a party that is 5 years old, that's not bad. There are much older parties who performed worse, for example, the Marijuana (133 votes) and Animal Protection (1,299 votes) parties. Cent check (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:ORG. Monhiroe (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough coverage. I only found a minor news source and brief mentions in election result lists. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe the Centrist Party of Canada meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. While it may not have extensive mainstream media coverage, it has been mentioned in election reporting, such as in an article discussing smaller parties and their vote count. Additionally, the party maintains an official website where it shares news and updates.

Notability on Wikipedia is not solely determined by the volume of news coverage but rather by the presence of independent, verifiable sources. Given that the party has participated in elections and has been referenced in political discussions, I believe it warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Cent check (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here is one article Cent check (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravelets (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)

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search. Although they have a considerably large social media following, it does not contribute to notability. No secondary coverage found that would satisfy WP:NORG or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, United States of America, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears a decent amount of the coverage that was there in 2016 - including some of the sources I used in the article itself - have disappeared in the last decade. It's a shame I can't see the Austin.com article anymore. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Australians Party (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only two mentions in Crikey ([1], [2]). toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The best I could find was a couple of sentences in the Courier Mail [3]. Can't find anything approaching SIGCOV. I suppose we could redirect to List of historical political parties in Australia where it has an entry, but I'm not convinced that list should really be including non-notable entries anyway. MCE89 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it received a rounding error of the vote. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough sources to establish WP:NCORP, neither in the article, or online. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High School Republican National Federation (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)

Subject does not appear to be notable as a standalone article. Coverage is limited to either interviews with individuals connected to the subject (e.g their chairperson) or passing mentions about the subject, and there doesn't seem to be any reliable, secondary coverage about the subject to warrant a article. Article edit history also shows a potential WP:COI. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello,

  I am currently an officer and would like to provide an update. This organization is still active, as we recently held elections and elected full leadership for the next school year. Additionally, we have a valid website listed and are still campaigning for Republican candidates on all levels. CTRU441 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Democracy (Czech Republic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD due to having incoming links. However, there is no evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor party, fails WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wow, what will they think of next! But they will probably last 7 weeks. Not notable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this party received a rounding error of votes in one election. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia (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 academic society. Lacks RSs and seems unlikely any would exist. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Social science, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Council on Compensation Insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no references at all to this insurance-related industry-funded company in Florida. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article needs to be improved and sourced (If I have time I will do those things later,) but this article has reliable sources and the subject is notable. After all, notability is based off of the existence of sources, not just the ones in the article. It's also a non-profit, not really a company. Here we go: [4][5][6][7][8][9] (Primary, non independent source), [10][11][12][13][14][15]. In essence, this is a data collection non profit for the insurance industry, and its relatively influential and important. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and the WP:NORG guidelines. In the future, please conduct an adequate WP:BEFORE check. --AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flamengo de Ngagara (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)

Burundian club possibly named in honor of CR Flamengo, but with no evident relevance or sportive merit. Svartner (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Organizations, and Africa. Svartner (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Played in the country's top league from 2006 to 2014. WP:ATDR target found at List of football clubs in Burundi. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. Svartner (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• They're almost certain to have been covered if they played eight years in the country's top league. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a story on them from Indonesia(?), although I question its reliability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Radar Jawa is a local website based in Java. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 19:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of football clubs in Burundi: no coverage to justify an article FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Flower Secondary School (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 Topic. Fails WP:GNG and Criteria for Schools as well. No available secondary sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Organizations, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no WP:RS, this can be a Wikidata item. --hroest 14:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Tenshi! (Talk page) 17:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RS and WP:NSCHOOL. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A recently established non-profit organization, neither launched or backed by the Azerbaijani government, appears to be attempting to appropriate the concept of the Baku Initiative and amplify its significance. Notably, the Baku Initiative is an international effort originally led by the European Union. Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Azerbaijan. Charlie (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we are not a soapbox. Bearian (talk)

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

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

This company does not meet the notability guideline for corporations. The only coverage of this corporation is from trade publications. The existing sources are either unreliable (Forbes) or routine coverage (TechCrunch). voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Computing, India, and California. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources listed do not appear to assert notability, with one (Fortune India) using some questionable language ("revolutionary", "uber-cool"). The other two that appear to have some depth (Devops and TheNewStack) seem to be centered on their product "globstar" and not the company itself. As usual, I ignored the sources we already have flagged as potentially unreliable (which were already mentioned by the nom) I haven't found any better sources in my search.ASUKITE 21:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Forbes India article is a company profile. The Fortune India piece appears under the Fortune India Exchange, which is likely a sponsored feature. Other available articles mostly follow a promotional, SEO-driven format. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 06:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in addition to above mentions, finding a handful of the citations are just passing mentions. or even primary sources.Villkomoses (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; corposlop. jp×g🗯️ 03:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources do not really support notability and a lot of them are self published sources. We cannot have every single company on Earth have their own page if they are not notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comdata (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/WP:ORGCRIT and the broader WP:GNG. The article is sourced to only two items:

• a one‑paragraph Bloomberg wire about Ceridian’s 1995 purchase (reprinted in *The New York Times*) – routine transaction coverage; and
• Fleetcor’s own 2014 investor news release announcing its $3.45 billion acquisition – a primary, self‑published source.

Database searches (Factiva/Lexis/Google News) locate nothing more substantial than brief Reuters market notes on the 2014 deal and similar M&A rumours – all explicitly WP:ROUTINE business disclosures lacking the in‑depth, independent, secondary analysis required by policy. No major newspaper, magazine, journal, or book offers sustained coverage of the company itself. AndesExplorer (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and United States of America. AndesExplorer (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

does not meet criteria of WP:NCORP/WP:ORGCRIT or the broader WP:GNG. Every citation in the article is either the company’s own web domains, lightly rewritten press‑release items in local Indonesian business blogs (Infobanknews, Techverse.Asia, Kontan, Republika, Warta Ekonomi, Kompas), or brief venture‑funding notices (e.g. Preqin’s one‑sentence financing blurb). None offers the significant, independent, secondary coverage that policy requires. A thorough news‑database and web search turned up nothing beyond routine funding announcements and product‑launch snippets, which are explicitly classed as WP:ROUTINE and thus insufficient for notability.

The subject is also very young, so any claim to lasting notability is WP:TOOSOON. The article’s promotional tone, product‑feature list, and heavy reliance on primary sources underscore the absence of neutral, verifiable coverage. With no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the topic fails Wikipedia’s organisational notability standard. AndesExplorer (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Technology, and Indonesia. AndesExplorer (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respectfully oppose the deletion of the Honest Card Wikipedia page for several important reasons:

The company has demonstrated significance beyond routine announcements. Their $19.7 million Series A funding represents substantial investor confidence, they've secured official licensing from Indonesia's Financial Services Authority (OJK), and have achieved over 1 million users on Google Play Store Indonesia.

While applying WP:GEOSCOPE, we should recognize that Honest Card has particular regional significance in Indonesia, a nation of 270+ million people. Several cited sources are established Indonesian publications with journalistic standing. Kompas is Indonesia's largest newspaper, while Infobanknews, Republika, Kontan, and Warta Ekonomi are recognized business publications that have provided independent coverage beyond press releases.

Regarding WP:TOOSOON concerns, Honest Card has already achieved significant milestones that suggest notability: governmental licensing, major funding, Mastercard partnership, and substantial user adoption. These aren't preliminary achievements but established accomplishments.

Rather than deletion, I suggest we follow Wikipedia's collaborative spirit by improving the page: adding more independent sources as they become available, addressing any promotional tone, and expanding context about Indonesia's fintech sector. Geraeldo Sinaga (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete doesnt meet WP:NCORP, doesnt have any independent coverage and the article contains no real information and is mainly an ad for the company. --hroest 15:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMC Automotriz (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)

Car manufacturing company that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Half of the sources cited in this article come from company's own website, while others are very short mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Venezuela. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not fully decided on the !vote, but there's quite some coverage in independent sources, especially about production issues, worker strikes, and a major acquisition operation [16][17][18][19][20][21]. Also covered in in a book about the Panama Papers [22] but I have not accessed it so not sure the extent of it. MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invermay 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)

Insufficient notability, no significant coverage. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Football Tasmania#Defunct teams – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant Secondary School (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)

Lacks Notability. Promotional contents. All the references are primary. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:NSCHOOL due to lack of WP:SIGCOV from non-primary sources. seems pretty straight forward. --hroest 20:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough for inclusion due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. If every school in the world were included on here, it would clutter Wikipedia and make it difficult to maintain all of the content. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Alliance of Independent Citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD due to being a political party. However, such organisations still have to meet WP:ORG, and there is no evidence that this one does. C679 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C679 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fail organisation guidlines, not many signs of notability. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is not really any notable sources here. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, there needs to be more independent sources to bolster inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gambella University (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)

Undisclosed conflict of interest...fails WP:NORG primary sourced advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public university, not a paid promotion. Which parts raised concerns about undisclosed paid editing or conflict of interest? But I can go ahead and blank it out, if it makes you happy. Wieditor25 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a public university, and paid promotion, are not mutually exclusive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wieditor25 no need to blank it nor should you. This discussion will determine if the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Other editors will hopefully opine. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - I'm shocked to see the comments about COI, but there is no proof that the editor works at the university. Then again, most of the sources are from the university's website, so it could fall under a WP:SOAPBOX violation. JTZegers (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed, most of the sources are from the university itself (connexion to subject). The rest are two counts of routine coverage, a dead source, and a PDF labeled as a "self-evaluation". Nothing here works. Also, Wieditor25 has attempted to canvass this conversation on the Teahouse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep this needs some cleanup but this is a public university with some independent coverage from the Ethiopian News Agency. --hroest 19:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Said coverage is routine and is of little value in determining notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Safety Network (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)

Seems to fail WP:NORG, I did not find sources offering significant independent coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as the network is notable in the UK. There are secondary sources about it ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and even academic research recognizing it ([7], [8], [9], and more). But I recognize Eddie891's point so I suggest some of these references being incorporated into the article so it is better sourced and more complete. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of those sources have significant coverage and are reliable, and independent from the organization? I see reliable sources with trivial coverage, and non-independent sources with substantial coverage, but none that are all three. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1, 3 and 4 are not even independent. MarioGom (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per sources above, and aside from the fact I just had to remove a speedy deletion tag from this same page just a few days ago because no-one bothered to check that the content was different and was based on new sources unavailable when the first version was deleted, many of the new academic sources mentioned above are even newer that have been published since this version was created. Somehow I don't think its good idea to delete an article as "non-notable" when it seems to be continually generating new usable sources. Iostn (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Iostn: Which of those sources is an independent and reliable source that provides WP:ORGDEPTH, if any? MarioGom (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of the sources mentioned before he academic citations were once I had no included for not being very useful, but aside from that, 7 is predicated on works by the TSN to a not-insignificant extent, including citing them through proxy via Andrews 2023, and 9 contrary to the "trivial mention" claim makes use of five separate citations leading to them across the document. In addition, 2 may also pass WP:SPS as the blog it belongs to is from an academic in this field, and that is not mentioning the additional coverage linked by @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Iostn (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources being predicated on an organization's work, or citing or quoting that organization, do not contribute to notability. None of the provided sources have in-depth coverage of the organization itself.

  Per WP:ORGDEPTH: significant coverageprovides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

  Per WP:ORGTRIV: trivial coverage includesbrief or passing mentions, such as... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources andother listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Astaire (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The sources presented by Afonso Dimas Martins do not meet the WP:NORG criteria for multiple independent sources with significant coverage.

• Source 1: A technology company that redesigned the organization's website. Not independent.
• Source 2: WP:SPS that is also not independent:I am also hugely grateful to grassroots organisations such as Trans Safety Network... for gathering a lot of the information I collated in this post.
• Source 3: A pair of artists who have given a grant to the organization. Not independent.
• Source 4: An activist collective announcing that the organization has joined it. Not independent.
• Source 5: Trivial mention of a single sentence.
• Source 6: Trivial coverage of 4 sentences total, and likely not independent because the source is encouraging readers to donate.
• Source 7: Trivial coverage. The organization is cited in three separate sentences throughout the document.
• Source 8: Trivial coverage. The organization is cited in two separate sentences throughout the document.
• Source 9: Trivial mention of a single sentence.

Of the sources currently in the article, only this Pink News article constitutes significant, independent coverage. The other sources are interviews (i.e., not independent) or trivial mentions. WP:ORGCRIT is not satisfied. Astaire (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is acknowledging TSN as a source for research in 2 (i.e., essentially providing a citation in 2) "not independent"? Iostn (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon rereading, it's not clear whether the author was specifically provided the data by TSN, so I withdraw the "not independent" claim. The real issue is that source 2 fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Three sentences with passing mentions of TSN scattered across two different blog posts. Astaire (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are very weak sources that really wouldn't help expand the article - eg. source 8 is a blogpost from a defunct activist group that has been subsequently uploaded to someone else's personal website. Void if removed (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep In addition to the sources previously noted, particularly the academic sources discussing, contextualizing, and citing their research, there's sustained coverage in news publications for the last few years, ranging from in depth analyses of their reports to quoting them as subject experts on misinformation:
  • TBIJ:Trans Safety Network, which records attempts at institutional and organised harm against trans people in the UK, has expressed concern that Bayswater actively promotes a manual for conversion therapy, coercive practices that aim to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.[23][24]
  • Members speaking to parliament and giving quotes to Open Democracy[25]
  • The Advocate (magazine) discussing viral research of the TSN:Now, new evidence has come out that suggests Twitter is restricting the visibility of LGBTQ+ content sent via direct message. The restrictions were first noticed by Twitter users before being publicized in a viral tweet from UK-based research collective Trans Safety Network.[26] This was also covered in the Independent.[27]
  • Pinknews article devoted to just one of their open letters:Advocacy group Trans Safety Network published a letter on Wednesday (14 June) opposing a case brought by an anonymous father attempting to blockade his 21-year-old trans daughter from undergoing the procedure consensually.[28]
  • The BBC asking TSN for comment on misinformation about trans people.[29]
  • The byline times reporting on TSN's comments to open democracy and seeking comment from them themselves.[30]
  • Coverage of TSN publishing leaked NHS training material in Xtra Magazine:Researchers at the Trans Safety Network, a research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community, managed to obtain gender exploratory therapy materials from a NHS training in the U.K. held by a consultancy called Explore Consultation.[31]
  • Vice covering how the TSN tracked another piece of misinformation:a baseless claim that Stonewall, the UK LGBTQ+ charity, are campaigning to lower the age of consent to ten years old. This is full-blown conspiracy theory has been tracked by the Trans Safety Network – a UK-based group that monitors anti-trans hate – to a statement by the Women’s Human Rights Campaign (WHRC).[32]
  • NBC News quoting them on misinformation.[33]
• This was a small sampling of news sources, and a quick check found about another dozen academic articles which cited and or discussed the TSN's research. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are frequently quoted in the media, but I still don't see any sources that clearly pass the WP:SIRS bar which we require for any organization. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all examples of trivial coverage:brief or passing mentions, such as... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources andother listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. (WP:ORGTRIV)

These sources would be useful to flesh out the article if notability were already established, but cannot themselves establish notability. Astaire (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not just quotes or brief/passing mentions, but coverage of actions:

• The Advocate and Independent both covered their investigation into Twitter.[34][35]
• The Pinknews piece is about an open letter organized by the TSN, discusses and analyzes their arguments over an article[36]
• Xtra Magazine covers information that TSN leaked, analyzing and discussing it over an article[37]
• Vice isn't a quote, it's a description of their research in an investigation[38]

The multiple articles solely devoted to investigations and lawsuits by this organization meet the S in SIRS easily. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources aresignificant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth (WP:SIRS). The only coverage of TSN itself in those articles are single-sentence descriptions such as a "UK-based research collective" or an "advocacy group" or a "research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community". This is plainly not enough for notability. Astaire (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV:Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The only coverage of TSN itself in those articles are single-sentence descriptions - No, PinkNews devotes an entire article to an open letter from TSN, Xtra devotes a few paragraphs to their investigation, etc. An article saying "group, described as XYZ, did something. Here's more info about what they did. Here's how others responded. Here's how that's relevant to the broader story" is qualitatively different than "group, described as XYZ, said something". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews devotes an entire article to an open letter from TSN The letter is not the organization. There is no significant coverage of the organization in that article. It is described as an "advocacy group" with no further discussion.

Xtra devotes a few paragraphs to their investigation There is a single sentence describing TSN as "a research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community" and mentioning that TSN was responsible for obtaining these materials. Xtra then discusses the materials without further reference to TSN. This is not significant coverage of the organization itself.

This article is an example of what significant coverage actually looks like. Astaire (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I've previously seen WP:SIGCOV taken to mean an article must cover an organization in depth and doesn't count if it covers an action of theirs in depth. Organizations are notable for their actions, services, etc. Under this criteria, if we had 100 RS covering actions of an organization in depth over years, but none devoted solely to "here's a profile of the org", we wouldn't be able to write an article. We'll have to agree to disagree on how SIGCOV applies and see what others think. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH is a fairly clear criteria, it requires in-depth coverage about the organization. And it is not clear how any source here meets it. MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH:Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements

Articles devoted to actions of TSN are neither "brief mentions" or "routine announcements". The sources above go into "commentary", "discussion", "analysis" and "evaluation" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may be my last comment here, because it is feels a bit like we are talking in circles and not likely to agree here, but this is my analysis of the sources presented.

• The Advocate/Independent don't offer substantial analysis of the tweet they are reporting on. The advocate is entirely dependent on the organization, and TSN only comes up in The Independent brieflyThe restrictions were ...publicized in a viral tweet from UK-based research collective Trans Safety Network. They could support claims of twitter censorship, but tell us very little about the Trans Safety Network (~1 sentence)
• Coverage of the open letter is somewhat more substantive, but again the only thing it can tell us about the Trans Safety Network is that they are anAdvocacy group thatpublished a letter on Wednesday (14 June) opposing a case brought by an anonymous father attempting to blockade his 21-year-old trans daughter from undergoing the procedure consensually. It's a much better source for the court case itself, and again has no independent analysis of TSN's role. Additionally, it is from the same source as our only agreed upon source of sigcov, so wouldn't count as a second piece
• Xtra tells us that the TSN isa research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community whichmanaged to obtain gender exploratory therapy materials from a NHS training in the U.K. held by a consultancy called Explore Consultation. The rest of the article tells us what those materials say, but do not talk any more about the TSN. It is a good source for the content of those materials, but only mentions the organization in passing.
• All Vice tells us about the organization is that they tracked the spread ofa baseless claim that Stonewall, the UK LGBTQ+ charity, are campaigning to lower the age of consent to ten years old. We honestly can't even tell whether the rest of the article describes TSN's research, or Vice's own.

As best I can tell, none of these sources offer more than a sentence of direct coverage of the Trans Safety Network, so I can't understand how they could be used to build an article. They are exactly the sort of sources that we would reject from contributing to the notability of a company- containing little to no independent analysis of the organization's work. For example, you cannot tell from these articles anything about the TSN: how they conduct their research, what exactly they are (beyond a 'research collective' or 'advocacy group'), where their information is coming from, when/why the group was founded, or what impact the group has had. Compare those articles to the SIGCOV [39]. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: sources discussed so far do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, being cited by media is not enough to establish notability for organizations. MarioGom (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: broadly agree with other editors' assessment about lack of WP:ORGDEPTH in existing sources. Plenty of passing mentions and citations in academic work etc have been mentioned that could theoretically be used to build the article, but the most significant in-depth coverage in an RS that would establish notability is this Pink News profile. Does this alone pass the notability bar? Seems to fail WP:MULTSOURCES from what I can see. Void if removed (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't usually wade into AfD discussions these days because I have been burned in the past, but based on the sources shared in the discussion, plus those in the article itself, it is specious to say this organization is "not notable." I don't understand why the person who raised this AfD did not bring these concerns onto the talk page first. That should be a standard thing people do on here, but sadly I see they do not. As is said many times, deleting an article is not a substitute for cleanup. It never is and it never will be. Historyday01 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per YFNS. Sourcing indicates notability. notified from Wikiproject LGBT Talk page Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forum of Irish Postgraduate Medical Training Bodies (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 organisation. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. While, as expected by WP:NGO, the "scope of their activities is national [..] in scale", there is no indication that the org "has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization". Searches in national news outlets return only passing mentions. For example, a search in The Irish Times returns only passing mentions and "letters to the editor" by people associated with the org. A search on national broadcaster RTÉ 's website returns a single passing mention. A similar search across the entire Irish Independent stable of national/regional/local papers also only returns a single passing mention. Same goes for the Irish Examiner (4 passing mentions), and The Journal (2 passing mentions). Even a broad Google search returns barely 80 results (including the org's own website, socials, the above passing mentions in news articles, and random mentions in Facebook/LinkedIn posts and press releases). Not only is none of this useful in establishing notability, it is even insufficient to allow for expansion of this title beyond the bare sub-stub it has been for years. (Other than its own website, how would we source information on formation, dates, activities, etc?) In terms of WP:ATDs, given that the org isn't even mentioned once elsewhere on the project, I cannot conceive of an appropriate redirection (such that the org could be covered WP:WITHIN another title.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: or redirect to Medical education in Ireland. -- MarioGom (talk) 07:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah. Thanks. Hadn't spotted that title. FWIW, I'd personally (as nom) have no issue with a redirect to Medical_education_in_Ireland#Postgraduate_education (if that title had a short note/mention of the subject). Would seem a reasonable place to mention/cover the subject org... Guliolopez (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Very short stub & has a lot of issues. It doesn't even meet the notability criteria _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 16:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Olympics, and New Zealand. Skynxnex (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• At 120 years old, the club has been around. Could you please outline what you have done regarding WP:BEFORE, Ophyrius? Schwede66 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Schwede66! I did a quick search on my search engine and all the content that was displayed was of other clubs. Only this article was this Wikipedia one that told about this specific club. Because of that I don't think this is as notable. But, I may be using a search engine other than yours. If you find any sources from there please tell. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 03:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Well, we have digitised newspapers in New Zealand at PapersPast; mostly up to 1945 but some going as recent as 1989. When I search for the phrase "Hamilton Rowing Club" (i.e. not just the words, but the equivalent of searching for a string of words in quotation marks), I get 1,942 results. Much of that will be routine reporting, but I'm sure there will be some gems in there, too. If you weren't aware of PapersPast, you wouldn't have found those results; you have to search through their website directly. As such, I shall place a keep !vote. Schwede66 08:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Students 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)

Non-notable organisation. No reliable sources. Fails WP:N and would seem unlikely to ever meet it. Cabrils (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - PSU, previously AIPSU, is active since 1950s, and has played a significant role in student politics in Kerala, West Bengal and, to some extent, Tripura. But it's an organization that is now well past its heydays, and its online footprint isn't great. I note this "RSP did not fail to cast its net wide enough to reach the student community . Its student wing is called PSU or Progressive Students ' Union . In pre - partition days , RSP student leaders who worked hand in hand with the All India Students Congress , took part in the struggles against the British Raj . They joined demonstrations for the release of INA prisoners , observed Rashid Ali Day , and campaigned against communal riots . But they had no alliance with the student cadres of the CPI . In post - independence period , All Bengal Students Congress adopted a policy of all out support to the Congress Govt . and the RSP found it increasingly difficult to support this rightwing leadership . Hence in 1956 , the PSU came into existence . The students belonging to the PSU upheld the cause of universal education , democratic management of schools and colleges , more budgetary allocation of funds for education etc. The PSU sent volunteers for the liberation of Goa , organised relief squads for the refugees , protested against the increase in school fees and undemocratic Bill for the Board of secondary Education . Sourindra Nath Bhattacharya , Bijan Biswas , Prof. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya were prominent student leaders of the RSP . Banin Ray , Kshiti Goswami were also in the limelight for many years . But the PSU was never considered a very strong force in West Bengal student movement ." (Marxist Parties of West Bengal in Opposition and in Government, 1947-2001 (p. 88))

Another ref is [https://ia601504.us.archive.org/4/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.131364/2015.131364.The-Politics-Of-Scarcity_text.pdf The Politics of Scarcity (p. 181) by Myron Weiner "Two other student movements claim national coverage, the Progressive Students Union, sponsored by the Marxist-left, and the Socialist-sponsored Socialist Student Organization. The PSU was started in 1954 and claims thousands of members in Calcutta and tens of thousands nationally. Like members of the Youth Congress and AISF, they arc active in attempting to gain control of the various college unions, and have succeeded in a few of the Calcutta colleges. They participated in the 1954 teachers’ movement for higher wages, sent volunteers to the Goa satyagraha campaign, and agitated against the attempt to merge the states of Bihar and West Bengal. In 1955 the PSU agitated against raising tuition fees, and in 1957 they participated in the protest against high food prices. The PSU is strongest in Calcutta, as arc the other student groups in Bengal, and is less active in the rural schools and colleges. Its most active workers, like those of the Marxist-left parties that give it support, have come from East Bengal."

I'd argue this is a case of WP:NEXIST, where it is clear that if we had access to regional print media from Kerala and Bengal from 1950s, 1960s, 1970s etc we'd have plenty of material to use as source. We do find some proxies of this online, such as [40], [41] The Telegraph (on conflict at a college in WB), The Telegraph (report on a 2 day district conf attended by state minister), [https://www.telegraphindia.com/west-bengal/rsp-sets-terms-for-election-alliance/cid/842288, a school gherao (2005). On participation is Bengal refugee movement, The Marginal Men: The Refugees and the Left Political Syndrome in West Bengal (p. 383). Per non-WP:RS source AIPSU won 1969 student elections in West Bengal in 5 colleges. AIPSU also produced many of the RSP national leaders, such as T. J. Chandrachoodan and Kshiti Goswami. --Soman (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 2025 article in Ananda Bazar Patrika on the 23rd West Bengal PSU conference. 2022 article in Ananda Bazar Patrika on election of new West Bengal leadership of PSU. --Soman (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am convinced by Soman's argument and sources. The sources alone might be enough to meet the GNG, but when combined with the clearly demonstrated history and national political influence of this organization, NEXIST more than suffices. Toadspike [Talk] 13:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Soman. Lova Falk (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freiburg-Madison-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)

Non-notable organisation. No reliable sources. Promotional. See WP:NOT. Fails WP:NORG. Cabrils (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Germany, and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Can this be merged into one if the cities' article under "Twin cities" or the like? Bearian (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does every twinning agreement between every pair of cities in the world need a separate article? It should surely be enough to mention the twins in the articles on the cities concerned. Athel cb (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackMiami (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)

Subject does not seem to be notable upon search - no reliable, secondary sources can be found. PROD was proposed & contested in the past for the same reason, so AfD is the only course of action available here. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, and Florida. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - there has been some secondary coverage, most notably, Forbes and The Rolling Stone, but the article's tone should be improved. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous articles and information security listings talk about HackMiami. Some are listed in this article already. Many notable people have talked and participated in this event and has been going on for over a decade.

large sponsors such as T-Mobile have sponsored this event and have a sizable following and was even on the cover of rollingstone H477r1ck (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are many articles about this topic, which makes it notable. Sources are fine. Citadelian (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Bat Cave (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)

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search - there are articles such as the Austin Chronicle, but they are not WP:SIGCOV so there's no reason to presume that the subject is notable. The current state of the article also only has one reference, which is their own website. Also slight WP:NPOV issues. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, I have begun to add references to the article and fix the language. I am still finding more refs, but it is already a very different article than what it was before. StonyBrook _babble 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This literacy organization meets GNG and NCORP by way of the following newspaper articles that are available via the Newspaper Archive & Newspapers.com (requires access): Daily Texan (9 Nov 2015) Nonprofit Austin Bat Cave teaches, publishes children's creative writing which is a front page newspaper feature article (two pages long, with photo); Brownsville Herald a half-page article (29 July 2019) with four photographs Expressive Project: Teaching writing is as important as reading; Lockhart Post Register (8 September 2022) Evening with the Authors a paragraph on the founder of Austin Bat Cave; The Paducah Sun (18 July 2019) Is teaching writing as important as teaching reading? feature article with three photos of Austin Bat Cave, later picked up by the The Saginaw News 23 August 2019) and circulated nationally; Austin American-Statesman (12 Jan 2017) Out - several paragraphs and a photo of the founder; Austin American-Statesman (16 April 2011) Tutors with Austin Bat Cave help students get their wings - feature article with photo on the front page of the "Life & Arts" section, continued on a second page as a half-page article with three more photos; and more. These sources (and others) clearly provide the required secondary Significant Coverage in multiple reliable sources that are fully independent of the organization over an extended period of time - for years. The coverage addresses the subject in-depth and directly. I agree with StonyBrook that the article may need cleaning up and improvements, however that is not a valid rationale for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The Sol Foundation (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)

More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [42] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [43], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [44], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [45]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Paranormal, Politics, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Guideline for establishing notability in this instance is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). 5Q5|^✉ 11:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose deletion. Regardless of individual beliefs about UAPs, the topic is widely covered by mainstream media, government sources, and academic commentary. Wikipedia’s role is to document verifiable information, not to judge its validity. Deleting well-sourced content undermines neutrality and public access to information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article. To describe Dr. Nolan as an 'enthusiast' is a deliberately biasing term meant to diminish. Such derogatory language should not be used in a delete argument per rules. Dr. Nolan is a noted research scientist. Of one wants to describe a noted scientist with nearly 400 peer reviewed papers as an enthusiast, then one might also say Chetsford, the person proposing this deletion, is an enthusiast for anti-science propaganda. The Sol Foundation has now published several pure research papers on the subject of NHI (which by the way is mentioned in the UAP Disclosure act as put forward by Senators Schumer and Rounds) multiple times as a global definition of not just the idea of "aliens" but also any other non-human intelligence that might have originated on Earth prior to humanity. The pogrom driven by Chetsford, LuckyLouie and others is a malicious attempt against freedom of information and should be resisted. TruthBeGood (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC) — TruthBeGood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

• Very Strong Keep I have edited my keep and refactored the prior discussion below. The article has substantially changed since this was nominated. This was the Reference section when The Sol Foundation was sent nominated to delete:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288083567#References

I have now added sources including the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Hartford Courant, Catholic News Service, Aleteia, Rice University, Newsweek, Daily Express, PopMatters, Society of Catholic Scientists, la Repubblica, Focus (German magazine), Niconico, La Razón (Madrid), Sunday World, Futurism, the International Social Science Journal, and more, and still have more yet to go through when I have time. This is the References section now after 39 edits by me:

* Archive: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733#References

* Live: The Sol Foundation#References

Here is all current sources sorted against WP:SIGCOV: Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

That is coverage from seven (7) nations: the United States, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and Japan. I think this is now a trivial keep and the AfD should be withdrawn. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is considered generally unreliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Daily Express is considered generally unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. "Popmatters.com" - a small pop culture, citizen journalism website [46] that publishes listicles like "the best albums of 1999" - is doubtfully RS for coverage of xenobiology, quantum physics, and astronautical engineering per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The La Razon article mentions the Sol Foundation once (in a title quote attribution to its founder) and is not WP:SIGCOV.
I've gone through the rest of the sources in this latest batch and they all are insufficient in similar ways, however, due to the sheer volume of sources I am truncating the written portion of my analysis for purposes of readability. (I previously evaluated a different shotgun spread of sources by the above editor in a comment I made [47] said editor has taken it upon himself to collapse.) Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers: Please pay attention to this.

Your La Razon remark is completely made up of whole cloth and your imagination. Why would you do that? Did you think no one read the content? The La Razon article says, "Inspirados en proyectos científicos y divulgativos, como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nollan con la Fundación SOL, o en Francia UAP Check, los miembros de UAP Digital y UAP Spain prevén la próxima creación de un Panel de expertos multidisciplinar que impulse el debate y el estudio científico sobre los Fenómenos Anómalos No Identificados en territorio europeo." That translates to, "Inspired by scientific and educational projects, such as the one launched by Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation, or by UAP Check in France, the members of UAP Digital and UAP Spain plan to create a multidisciplinary panel of experts to promote debate and scientific study on Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena in Europe." Which is the citation for, "La Razón credited the Sol Foundation with having inspired similar research ventures in Spain."

How is that a "a title quote attribution to its founder"? La Razón explicitly credits the SOL Foundation itself, not just Garry Nolan or its title, as an inspiration for UAP Digital and UAP Spain’s planned expert panel. The sentence structure in Spanish--"como el que ha puesto en marcha Garry Nolan con la Fundación SOL"--clearly attributes the project’s inspiration to both Nolan and the SOL Foundation as entities, not merely using the Foundation’s name as a descriptor. There is no valid counterargument because the conjunction "con" ("with") grammatically links Nolan’s action to the SOL Foundation as an active collaborator or source of the project, making it impossible to interpret the Foundation as a passive or incidental mention.

The nominator has substantially misdiscribed everything. Did you notice how many of the sources are notable enough to have deeply complex Wikipedia articles themselves? The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics is a bad source for the topic of a foundation studying UFOs? Some of the sources are thorough and entire pieces on the SOL Foundation. Some are brief but relevant mentions, and all of them were picked because they were relevant and contributed to Wikipedia:Notability. Look at my user page. I don't mess around with sourcing; this was something I did rapid fire because we simply needed to demonstrate notability, not build a complex 80k+ article... yet.

Remain Very Strong Keep. Parse all of nominator's remarks carefully for accuracy at this time. I don't know what is going on. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage in a debate as to whether the six word phrase "Garry Nolan and the SOL Foundation" constitutes WP:SIGCOV. But I acknowledge and appreciate your obvious passion for this subject. Chetsford (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Everyone knows that not every article source needs to be WP:SIGCOV. The point today is I have demonstrated breadth and scope of Wikipedia:Notability, with articles from global scales, from long to short pieces, to some that are significant and some that are minor. That's still notable. You can't minimize major international publications. You have not demonstrated in any way that The Sol Foundation lacks notability. There are still more sources, and more content (multiple citations for some) to pull out of the sourcing I've already added. There is no such thing as an AfD qualification or requirement that the article has to be in any sort of advanced state of development. Please be honest with our peers and fair. Very Strong Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have demonstrated breadth and scope of" We'll have to agree to disagree. As noted by my previous comments, your sources include WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, a citizen journalism pop culture website, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers, something called "exopolitik.com", [48] etc., etc. Chetsford (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What version of the site are you even looking at? Hartford Courant, Focus, Sunday World, the Catholic ones, AIAA, and so on? I challenge you, here and now, to show me exactly where Substack is used as a source, or else withdraw the AfD and recuse yourself from this article going forward, in perpeuity, with no option to undo that, and it will be enforced by other Admins? Do you agree?

Here, the current version right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Sol_Foundation&oldid=1288346733

Show me exactly where the text string "substack" shows up anywhere in that article. Do you agree to my terms? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it showed up "in that article." You said your comments on this Talk page "demonstrated breadth and scope". Those comments include "Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort ... substack.com/home/post/p-142904928" [49].
"Do you agree?" No thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is what you are compelled to judge against:

• The Sol Foundation#References
• Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

I have been exceptionally clear that I am arguing against the live, production sources. You arguing against what I previously linked here and did not use in the article is irrelevant. All that matters is what is in the live article now, and what is in the article now trivially meets Wikipedia:Notability and particularly, it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Not, again, what I linked and withdrew on the AfD. What is now live. This article passes AfD now trivially. If you are unwilling to address all the sources, you are not arguing per policy, and 'good faith' becomes questionable, as you are then arguing against non-acceptable criteria which is not policy. We are all slaves here to outcomes. That includes the nominator. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, have you had the opportunity to review the rewritten article?

  • The Sol Foundation#References
  • Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

  It's almost completely redone since the AfD and youre !vote. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-stating my delete !vote for the record. If it's required, as it seems to be á la mode, call it a Very Strong Delete. The article has been expanded in byteage, but the sources are of no better quality, unfourtunately, so WP:HEY doesn't apply (as an example of WP:HEY in an AfD, see for example at Becky Sharp, for Nations of 1984 or in Concordat of Worms, et al.). As has been established by the nom's thorough analysis of the new sources, few of them are both independent or indepth. None support the claims made to WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG, while support !votes themselves seem to rely on non-policy based arguments (e.g. BUTITEXISTS, an argument to avoid, using WP:OR to analyse sources' claims, and suggesting that all opinions given equal weight). And that's ignoring the continued questioning of other editors' motives. The keep !votes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, greater in number; they are, equally unsurprisingly however, weaker in policy. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. The few sentences I have read of the walls of text above haven't given me much motivation to read more, but evaluating this one on the merits: First, we have 2 unambiguous RS mentions: a brief mention in the Oxford reference ("In 2023, Garry Nolan established the Sol Foundation, a research center dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of UAP."), and an article from Focus discussing the org in depth. Second, we have lots of incidental mentions in RS, which are not themselves sufficient to establish notability but do support it. Third, although sources like The Debrief shouldn't be considered reliable for making claims about UAP, they are being used here to establish the existence and nature of a UAP-related organization, which could be acceptable. This, combined with the fact that several people are continuing to actively seek out and add new sources to the article, paints a picture of a low quality article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, so I'm landing on keep and improve with this one. -- LWG ^talk 22:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closer Re Offsite Discussion of this AfD. Extensive and impassioned offsite discussion of this AfD is occurring on Reddit's r/aliens and r/ufos (e.g. [51], etc.) and on X (e.g. [52], [53], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, as with other topics in this area there seems to have been a certain amount of WP:REFBOMBING going on in this article (with things like PR press releases being cited for some reason). I'm not seeing the multiple reliable WP:SIGCOV sources needed for WP:NORG, and I disagree that the one sentence in the oxford source counts for this, and I also disagree that a bunch of passing mentions/mentions in unreliable sources somehow makes up for this fact (and this isn't supported by my reading of WP:GNG) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  May I ask what unreliable sources you see here? Express and the PR thing from Japan (which was only there to give easier English language context to the other Japanese media source) are both gone.

  • The Sol Foundation#References
  • Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

  Several of the articles are about SOL specifically. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:HEY and WP:ATD. When it was nominated I would have voted the other way, per WP:TOOSOON, but with the newly added material I feel it now just crosses the line of notability and will likely improve in the future. 5Q5|^✉ 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Among the newly added sources like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, etc., which do you think are the best examples that prove SIGCOV here? Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Sol_Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV

I've assembled this here for users to review. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments made by LWG and 5Q5. The article's improved substantially since nomination and good RSes have been identified. An an aside, remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs. National Catholic Reporter and The Debrief aren't RSes for the existence of God or UFOs, but they're fine to verify specific groups of notable people have joined together to promote a shared belief. Noting that someone believes in Sasquatch isn't actually a argument for deletion: Ghosts, Ghost rockets, and the Holy Ghost are all 100% encyclopedic topics. Feoffer (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"remember, we have to exercise a measure of parity across coverage of all non-scientific beliefs" I'm not familiar with that policy. Chetsford (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just an aside. GNG is met per LWG and 5Q5. More abstract discussion is for some other page.Feoffer (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sorted list in Talk:The Sol Foundation#Current sources ranked against WP:SIGCOV captures enough of the primary criteria in WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria to justify keeping the article. WP:HEY and WP:ATD also appear to have helped the quality of the article improve in the past week. Tschieggm (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)— Tschieggm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. The article passes WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:N, and WP:SIGCOV. This has been evidenced by the above posts of Very Polite Person, Feoffer, and LWG. Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Source Evaluation. The article has changed considerably since the nomination with the carpet bombing of a dozen new sources into it. As nominator, I'm obligated to evaluate them to determine if the nomination should now be withdrawn. Based on my evaluation (below), I affirm the this article fails WP:ORGCRITE. We would need at least three sources that are across-the-board green (reliable, independent, and significant in coverage) as per WP:SIRS. As per SIRS, several sources that meet 2 of 3 criteria don't add together to create a single quality source. After one year of efforts, we still can only scrape together one.

Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your source evaluation, you left out Aleteia (2 mentions), Hartford Courant (3 mentions), The_Byte (3 mentions). WP:NEWSWEEK says: "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis." WP:ARXIV says: "generally unreliable with the exception of papers authored by established subject-matter experts." The arXiv paper was written by subject matter expert Matthew Szydagis, a university physics professor who is also a member of UAP orgs. This is a lot of media coverage for a foundation less than two years old. Even if the article were to be deleted, it will surely be republished. Just tag it at top with {{more citations needed}}. 5Q5|^✉ 12:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. It appears each of the three I missed are more fleeting, incidental mentions that only prove the organization exists (which is not in doubt), but don't meet the requirements of WP:ORGCRIT.
Insofar as Newsweek; when we evaluate an outlet, like Newsweek, on a case by case basis that (usually) means we accept some limited use for the mundane and routine. Obviously, reporting on a club of people whose leader may believe aliens are jumping through dimensional portals to conduct medical experiments on humans [59] is not the kind of basic, nuts and bolts use portended by WP:NEWSWEEK.
Insofar as arXiv goes, generously assuming the author is an expert, it may be usable for WP:V under WP:SPS, but unpublished manuscripts are -- by the fact they're unpublished -- not significant in coverage so are not SIGCOV. That said, a physics professor is no more an SME on flying saucers than a professor of music theory, since flying saucer belief is not a subject that falls within the bailiwick of physics. An SME on flying saucers might be a professor of folklore or sociology, or a clinical psychiatrist. Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On this narrow point, I gotta side with Chetsford. If we let everyone with a Phd and ARXIV qualify as a SME expert, we'd be lost. It's not "scientifically important", that's a red herring. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, The Debrief is reliable in the very limited context of profiling a like-minded organization. No one questions that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one questions that the group exists. Indeed, no one does. But see WP:BUTITEXISTS. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll reword. Not to put too fine a point on it: no one questions The Debrief's reporting that the group exists. Feoffer (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existence ≠ Notability Chetsford (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one here has suggested otherwise. At issue is whether Debrief functions as an RS in the very limited context of profiling an association of notable people with admittedly fringe beliefs. Feoffer (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community has previously critically discussed TheDebrief [60]. Opinions ranged from "Treat it as a group blog / self published source" (User:MrOllie); "the DeBrief is weighted toward generating sensational clickbait rather than reliably sourced journalism" (User:LuckyLouie); "Largely self-published website with a lean towards UFO/alien crankery and sometimes questionable pop science takes" (User:Bon_courage). MatthewM stated it was "highly credible, least biased, and mostly factual". Chetsford (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, it's a complex source, but look just at the matter at hand. Is there any reason their 'reporting' is mistaken or erroneous about who is in the organization and what they've said in the direct quotes? Feoffer (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown. We can't undertake the WP:OR needed to analyze the veracity of specific claims. The only thing we can say for certain is it doesn't meet our standards of reliability. Chetsford (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User's assessment of Popmatters is factually completely wrong; it's like saying the "New Yorker" is USERGENERATED because they take open submissions. They clearly have editorial control as seen here. From our own sourced article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PopMatters#Staff:

PopMatters publishes content from worldwide contributors. Its staff includes writers from backgrounds ranging from academics and professional journalists to career professionals and first time writers. Many of its writers are published authorities in various fields of study.[2][7] Notable former contributors include David Weigel, political reporter for Slate,[8] Steven Hyden, staff writer for Grantland and author of Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?,[9] and Rob Horning, executive editor of The New Inquiry.[10] Karen Zarker is the senior editor.

As I said above, assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles in direct opposition to sourcing guidelines. DO NOT take either of us at our word. Take the articles and facts at their word, and remember we are compelled to live and die by Wikipedia rules alone here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be adding them later:

• https://sfstandard.com/2024/12/01/alien-conferences-seti-sol-foundation/
• https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/would-extraterrestrial-intelligence-disprove-christianity/
• https://greekreporter.com/2024/04/01/us-navy-admiral-search-alien-life-underwater/

Please evaluate these too and attempt to be accurate. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not tenable. It's the third time you've apparently Google searched "Sol Foundation" and blasted every responsive link into this thread as purported proof of SIGCOV then demanded we prove each one isn't. The San Francisco Standard is addressed in the OP. Word on Fire Catholic Ministries is obviously not RS. Your approach is not conducive to a coherent discussion.
"assume good faith is incredibly thin here and ANY TEXT by this user on anything UFO-adjacent mandates compulsory maximum scrutiny, as I have now repeatedly factually demonstrated the user is attempting to distort facts to achieve their goal of deleting these articles" This is the third time you've pivoted from discussion into attacking the motivations of individual editors. I would again strongly encourage you to take your concerns to WP:ANI. I'm not personally offended by your ongoing aspersions, they're just derailing to the AfD. Thanks - Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word on Fire is patently WP:RS to discuss a topic of 'Would Extraterrestrial Intelligence Disprove Christianity?'. Again, as I demonstrated to all above with the La Razon example that you utterly mischaracterized--and that finding is incontrovertible--you're doing something here that is problematic. The article passes notability for the small scale of the article that we have. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your actions, as you seem to be tilting at increasingly tall windmills. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD closer: nominator has NOT rebutted my revealing they misrepresented Popmatters in their table, because that alone with the rest pushes this into basic trivial Notability compliance. That's why it's such a problem to them getting a successful deletion here; at that point the article subject will always be notable going forward. Diff here; there is no possible policy-based counter-argument to diminuize the Popmatters piece or present the site as not fine for WP:RS. This alone resolves the AFD. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have, thus far in this discussion, scattered more than two dozen different sources into the wind including unambiguously non-RS ones like WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:DAILYEXPRESS, and a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers. It's easier for you to take a pass through Google Search and shotgun any URL you find into the discussion than it is for me to offer rebuttal after surrebuttal for why each of these random links don't pass any realistic threshold of sourcing. So, if I stop responding to any particular item, assume it's for no other reason than I simply can't keep up. Chetsford (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for compiling this table. I'm not sure I agree that a source is unreliable for information about the existence and nature of a pseudoscientific UAP organization simply because the source also publishes similar pseudoscience. If anything it would be reason to scrutinize whether the source is truly WP:INDEPENDENT. But I haven't seen any reason to think that The Debrief is unreliable on the question of whether The Sol Foundation exists and is notable in the realm of UAP-related orgs. Also, as 5Q5 pointed out, you seem to have omitted the Hartford Courant and Aleteia citations, both of which seem to pass all three criteria. By my count the Focus, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia citations are sufficient to satisfy WP:SIRS, and the citations to The Debrief, arXiv, and the organization's own website pass the lower bar of being appropriate for inclusion, if not necessarily for establishing notability. The reason my keep vote is weak is that all the significant coverage about this org seems to relate to a single symposium they hosted in 2023, while the repetition of that event in 2024 doesn't seem to have gotten much if any coverage. There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct". But I'm not there yet. -- LWG ^talk 13:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a decent chance that in two years I'll be back here voting "delete, this org seems to be defunct"" WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Either it's notable or it isn't. It's not going to become non-notable in two years. Chetsford (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, but my weak keep vote isn't because I think it's notability might change, it's because I think it's notability is borderline and further information might convince me that it never was notable. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even though I voted keep, the article was a mess. I took a buzz saw to it to clear out the distracting material that will have to go anyway if this closes with keep. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just notification on a relevant matter: Chetsford put in an RfC on the reliability of The Debrief. In the Discussion, they say: "A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS." I would imagine the referenced AfD is this one, (Personal attack removed). Ben.Gowar (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben.Gowar: How many times do you have to be warned not to cast aspersions? I am sick and tired of your underhand, snide and generally all-round bad faith questioning of Chetsford's motives. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the sense that my talk page is a better place for those descriptors. In the case of this AfD, I'm mostly trying to keep interested parties informed of consequential RfCs. Especially if the AfD "turns" on it. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are persistently failing to assume good faith, peristently castining aspersions and then persistently sealioning when called on it. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, it is absolutely this AfD. And I purposely avoided mentioning it in the RSN RfC so as to avoid the possibility of canvassing editors from RSN to this AfD. Insofar as the theory in your edited comment [61] that I'm plotting to get The Debrief deprecated to "turn" this AfD ... that's not possible. The RfC on The Debrief will run at least 30 days. This AfD will close in the next week or two. Chetsford (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either this AfD is "presently turning on whether or not this is RS," or it is not. You have stated that it is. Ben.Gowar (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it obviously is; read the above comments -- its name has been invoked 21 times. But that's an entirely separate matter from the RSN listing. Once again, the RSN discussion will run 30 days. This AfD will close somewhere in the next 5-14 days. Nothing that happens at RSN will have any impact here. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but you seem convinced there are these far-reaching plots converging on certain subject matter. I'm at a loss as to what I can do to convince you that's not the case. Chetsford (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In both cases (AfD and the RfC), the reliability of The Debrief is in question. Interested editors should know. As far as the RSN discussion having no "impact here," that seems improbable given that AfD readers interested in the reliability of The Debrief may indeed look at the RfC (regardless of whether the discussion has run 30 days or not). I suppose there's the possibility of no immediate impact, if no one looks or no one references it (but the transparent nature of Wikipedia seems to render that improbable).

In any case, if the AfD discussion does not result in deletion, then the RfC will probably have an impact on the article later (especially if The Debrief citation remains). So, editors interested in this article should know. Ben.Gowar (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Cakelot1's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't intended to study this article, but all the vituperative, handwaving ad hominem shouting by Keep enthusiasts convinced me that I should. Having done so, I am satisfied that there are no serious reasons for keeping it, and that Chetsford is correct. Athel cb (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pretty much agree with what LWG, 5Q5, and Feoffer have said. The article's definitely gotten better since it was nominated (WP:HEY), and sources like Focus Magazine, Hartford Courant, and Aleteia look like they give us enough WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS for WP:NORG. Notability might be on the edge, but it seems good enough for now, and anything else that needs fixing looks WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some regular editing. Deleting it now feels a bit much with the sourcing we've got and the chance to improve it more. Omegamilky (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Of the sources that I find reliable and more coverage than one sentence (Hartford Courant, Aleteia, Focus), the first covers the founding; the second and third cover the organization's conferences in 2023 and 2024, and give a short mention of the organization. This feels WP:TOOSOON for an article, where the subject has not reached the threshold of notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm very sympathetic to this argument, we don't need to be covering every RECENT update about the UFO world. But where else could we put the "Roster" of notable people who collaborated together? That's the primary information I'd want readers to be able to reference: who is in which UFO "Supergroup". I know I certainly can't keep it straight without a reference. Feoffer (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Alright -- the subject of this article fails WP:GNG, and notability for companies because of lack of WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SUSTAINED in WP:RS. There are lots of sources, but they are either WP:ROUTINE, very old announcements of the opening, or not independent. This article has serious NPOV issues to go along with that -- seems like advertising and promotion. This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Washington. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft keep: The article is in desperate need for and update and rewrite, but I found a few local newspaper sources about the subject [62] [63] [64] [65] and a mention in Time Magazine [66]. These articles aren't very old and are independent. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article appears to be a likely hoax or satirical fabrication. It lacks reliable sources and has no verifiable evidence that the organization ever existed. The cited references are weak, misleading, or irrelevant. This topic does not meet notability guidelines.

This article presents SPONGE as a real political pressure group, but the claim is unsupported by reliable sources and appears to be an instance of misinformation. The only verifiable mentions of “SPONGE” refer to its use as a racist acronym or gag — not an actual organization. The 1978 Lewiston Evening Journal article documents a high school prank, not group activity. The 1999 commentary by Earl Ofari Hutchinson refers to an alleged use of the term within a police department, but offers no evidence of an actual group. The only historical book cited mentions SPONGE briefly, without treating it as real or notable.

In effect, the Wikipedia article is the fourth appearance of SPONGE, not documenting a group, but continuing the pattern of SPONGE being used as a recurring racist gag. There is no substantiated continuity, structure, or notability. Instead, this article appears to be a case of citogenesis or hoax propagation. It does not meet the standards of verifiability or notability and should be deleted. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 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 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE and SALT per nom as a repeated (racist) hoax. No doubt someone finds this funny, but there is no place for such things on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT sources even state it is fictitious. Delete per others reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE and SALT sources don't support claims. SPONGE was a racist inside joke. Article clearly a hoax. Dracophyllum 23:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @InvisibleUser909, Chiswick Chap, Czarking0, and Dracophyllum: Could we pump the brakes on the claims of this being a hoax and exhortations to protect the page from recreation? A previous AFD resulted in the article being kept, based on the book source (which does not treat the group as "fictitious") [67], this book review which suggests the group is covered in detail in one of its subjects, and contemporary mentions in the magazine Jet [68][69]. Additionally, there are several contemporary articles about the group in the New York Times (ex. [70][71][72]) and a Google Books search reveals even more potential sources. I'm not certain any of that means the article should be kept, as a slang dictionary refers to the group as "more notional than real" and one of the NYT articles above states that the group "has no office or headquarters, no constitution or charter, no officers or recognized leaders, no regular meetings, no staff and no agreement on what constitutes membership," but it at least deserves a more detailed discussion than what has taken place so far. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SPONGE was definitely a racist in-joke, per:

  • Its name had long been an in- side joke among neighborhood whites and played off their belief that blacks were “sponging” off the government at their expense. – The Ungonverable City

  Evidence for SPONGE as an organisation comes mostly from a small (<100) group of white (mostly Italian-American) youths who adopted the name. They got in the News when they: "battled members of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) who were protesting the lack of opportunities for blacks at the World’s Fair."

  A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. Per one of the news articles:

  • Sponge the "organization" that jeered at Mayor Lindsay in East New York Thursday night and later staged an antiNegro demonstration that provoked a reply in gunshots, beer and soda bottles really is not an organization at all."

  It is even clear that each action is from the same group? The name was spread through many different circles and communities. SPONGE at most deserves a few sentences in an article on Integration or racism in the period in question. Dracophyllum 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. That has nothing to do with any notability criteria. Notability will depend on whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources or not. MarioGom (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete + Salt - per above. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not salt and weak keep: Folks, just search the term in Google Books, Google Scholar, etc. There is a lot of coverage about the topic in reliable sources. I'm fine with deciding that the current article could deserve WP:TNT, but I'm really against salting here, since it's conceivable that someone would write a good article about it. MarioGom (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is more or less where I'm at too; it doesn't make any sense to salt the page, which is obviously not a hoax, and even TNTing it seems like an overreaction when the issues with it could be solved by rewriting it or possibly merging it with an appropriate target (I couldn't find a page on the riots the group participated in, but East New York#Economic downturn is one option). Right now my bold vote is Keep per WP:NEXIST. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, needs work seems somewhat notable, with coverage in secondary sources such as [73], [74]. Got contemporary news coverage as well, [75], [76]. I do think it might make sense to redirect/merge somewhere else, but I don't think that outright deletion makes sense, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion after consensus has trended from "get rid of it totally" to potentially salvageable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable and salvageable. Obviously not a hoax. It's short and bad but so are many articles and it's not so bad as to be TNT worthy. There are tons of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Professional Design Firms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Organization that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Organizations. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Business, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find any sigcov in newspapers.com, pressreader, or google news/books/scholar and I don't see a clear merge/redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajshahi Cantonment Public School and College (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)

One of the Cantonment schools in Bangladesh. Not particularly notable. Similar articles were deleted. See ---- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverview Cantonment Board School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammadpur A. Gafur Government Primary School, Jalalabad Cantonment English School And College, Ramu Cantonment English School and College, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramu Cantonment Public School and College etc.... Somajyoti ✉ 19:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - there are a lot of highly notable Schools in Bangladesh, but simply they do not come to any news unless there is a incident. So finding citation for them is quite hard but they are notable. If you google you can find that. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 12:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cerium4B Please note that:If a article doesn't cite reliable sources with significant coverage it must be deleted, per WP:NRSNVNA because it fails the WP:GNG, and WP:V. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All the sources for this very new school are primary/not independent. We need sources that demonstrate this meets WP:GNG, which is to say, multiple sources with significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Because the school is young, it seems unlikely there is anything out there, and we do ont list all schools uner the WP:NOT policy (Wikipedia is not a directory). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It does have in-depth sources (Just check the sources) and reliable sources, It's better to search and contribute to the article before nominating it for AfD, it also relates with WP:Three. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, you mention WP:THREE, so what three sources there do you believe are independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject? I'll be happy to review them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment from reading the bn article, it seems that this is a primary/high school and not a college/university. Even in the much longer bn article I dont really see any strong indication of notability. If there is indeed WP:SIGCOV then Cerium and Macarius should add these to the article to show that such coverage indeed exists. --hroest 20:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No best two or three sources are provided to establish the notability of the article. Shakakarta (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: ROTM article, refs mentioned are trivial. No reliable sources with significant coverage is found upon search. Hence, must be deleted as per WP:RS, WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV. Supporting essays: WP:ROTM, WP:NRSNVNA. No it's first time, cantonment school's articles are deleted. Archived AFD discussions based on same idea is also given by nom. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Yes, first of all, it is a registered NGO and relates to WP:Three, it has these patricular sources that you should check, or you can add sources to establish notability and search on the internet, why didn't you check or if you did check, atleast say so. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:28 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• And also, It's not "so little", please explain how large does the article have to be, I'll find the sources and add it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:32 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Being "short" is not grounds for deletion. That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If by "it can be attached" to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami you mean it can be merged there, then why is it nominated for deletion? For anyone searching for sources, the more common name is probably "Bangladesh Masjid Mission". Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Worldbruce's statement is correct, being short is not a reason for deletion, like if It's short, then why don't you expand the page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Like how I first check and fix pages and search until deciding a different approach, You should try to first search or use a different approach. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be useful if you read WP:AfD and this page can definitely be improved, AfD is not always the solution, editing it and adding information may make it suitable to stay as a separate article on Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This initiative is widely coverage in Bengali language. And Its have significant social contribution. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there is coverage of this in the Bengali language or any other language, add text supported by references from that language to the article so that it meets the notability criteria. It doesn’t matter what kind of social contribution it has. I think it is necessary to meet the notability criteria by using text supported by reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 08:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Somajyoti: It doesn't work that way. See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. This discussion is based on existing sources even if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can see in the cited sources, there's very little coverage of the Bangladesh Mosque Mission. For example, translating the first source yields no more than a few lines of relevant information: "He said these things in his speech as the chief guest at the day-long Imam training workshop organized by Bangladesh Mosque Mission, Chittagong North District." If there isn't any source that's entirely or mostly focused on the 'Bangladesh Mosque Mission', I'll lean towards delete. PS: Translating the other sources gives a similar impression -- just irrelevant passing mentions. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striked double vote. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References no. 2, 5, and 9 used here -- namely Bangla Tribune, Daily Sun (Bangladesh), and Bangla Tribune respectively -- may be considered reliable in the context of Bangladesh, excluding the rest. Somajyoti ✉ 15:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are many sources, looking at one and then saying its not enough to establish notability is absolute bogus, there are several in-depth sources and The Daily Ittefaq, Daily Sun, Bangla Tribune are reliable sources and others too, thus it passes, it is also a registered NGO and plays a important role in social reform, it left a impact and passes WP:GNG thus it deserves a separate article plus the article is not even 2 months old now, like give some time for improvement, Somajyoti and Maniacal ! Paradoxical! plus how is it not relevant? you have failed to explain, explain properly, Somajyoti also, you should explain your reason. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept per WP:N, WP:NEXIST and etc. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Niche NGO/political party with next to no visibility/recognition. If it is a party, there is no info on any elected officials or even elections it participated it. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The movement is an existing, formally established and growing association with social media presence. Other countries’ chapters of Volt, including the niche ones in the startup phase, have their own pages on Wikipedia. The argument that the association is not publicly well-known hence the article should be deleted is arbitrary.

It is not yet a formally established party, hence you unnecessarily expect elected officials, but neither are Volt chapters of other countries with their own Wikipedia webpages, operating as associations. Check the main page of Volt for further details. Daeheung (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not arbitrary, read WP:GNG. If similar or even less notable "start up" chapters have their own article - they need to be cleaned up as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then unless you clean up all small chapters of Volt, in fact being active registered associations, by your arbitrary argument of being unrecognized by wider public, you cannot clean up solely Volt Poland. Daeheung (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Side note: article also being currently discussed in deletion context on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:04:25:Volt Polska). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you, although from my standpoint this creates a pattern of arbitral inconsistency since there's other national chapters of Volt also operating as associations and not yet parties with their own Wiki pages. The article is going to be recreated anyway once the association registers as a party. "Other stuff exists" refers to comparisons understood in a wider sense than literal corresponding chapters of the same multinational organization. Daeheung (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be deleted again if there is no WP:SIGCOV-meeting sources. Not all entities registered as parties are notable. Only the "important" ones. As for inconsistency, sure. Folks spam articles on Wikipedia trying to promote niche concepts, we keep deleting them, but it takes time to clean up spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect to Volt Europa. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Sailing (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)

While American Sailing does offer training sources, this sailing program fails WP:NORG. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant oorganization that sets a nationwide standard. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found any secondary sources that back up the claims made in the article (i.e. that it is the predominant standards bearer for sailing the Americas). World Sailing seems to be the international body that actually sets standards for the sport, and US Sailing is the member org for the united states. Article seems more promotional to direct people to schools from American sailing which I expect is how they make their money. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare at Home (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 NGO is not notable, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Unicorbia (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disparity between search engines. Google returns different results compared to DuckDuckGo for example when searching the NGO. Using only Google perhaps yields a narrow or biased return. 2A00:23C6:F213:4101:968:2B7B:BF67:615B (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article displays similar references and citations as other NGO’s and organisations in the genre. I feel the NGO is notable but can see the counter argument as well. Thanks and good luck! Beusefulbekind (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the NGO’s website is entered into a search engine images are returned suggesting an indexing issue over lack of significant coverage. https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&sca_esv=017810d95fc5d12f&q=www.shakespeareathome.org&udm=2&fbs=ABzOT_BwhWbvgbq2-ldlJF_Xac4lwl4ZcQUKTNIEuq5aS_Zepj3qrSaXICRsYV5N74W3tzTRfsLFSrRz7ve1CoHJgcglLv8SGrSnkSeQFpu99wkeRdrZTbMXqXfA4_2TUZF5W45mnxYixR6y-5GTsKmF4TU8r9fiioDaNvE04XkK00AiS4qkNAWLdgnUAFsVApJDZA96ejXZyPTbx_jw3pTzfiHatMhw34ZCCznojS7RIg27Jp-Vdsc&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVj7PtwvKMAxUGWkEAHZaHLDoQtKgLegQIGBAB&biw=402&bih=677&dpr=3 2A00:23C6:F213:4101:968:2B7B:BF67:615B (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I have searched business news archives and various methods through Google, other academic archives, and found zero results related to this NGO. If there are reliable, independent sources that indicate the subject's notability, I could not find them. Anything I missed is greatly appreciated but this is a tough subject to search for due to the many things out there that are called some permutation of "shakespeare at home". -- Reconrabbit 19:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I also found nothing about this NGO on Google or Proquest. Agree that it's a tough one to search for given all the other hits under "Shakespeare at home", but I wasn't able to find anything to indicate notability. MCE89 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to locate any significant sufficient coverage that demonstrates notability beyond national law review. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - Information and sourcing is over a decade out of date. See https://nchv.org/ — Maile (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. I only found significant coverage in National Law Review still it is a reliable source but not independent it majorly contributed by law firms. So, it lacks to establish notability. Fade258 (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the reasoning and sources in the last AfD about five years ago, which one can see from the sidebar above. jp×g🗯️ 03:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]