Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Organizations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:ORG.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Organizations deletion

Janakpur Bolts

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

Yet another non notable NPL team. As per the other NPL teams, does not meet WP:GNG and should never have been created in the first place. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response

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

Article about a county-level government agency lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. AusLondonder (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Kids Africa Foundation

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lots of blogs and mentions but nothing significant in reliable sources that would meet the WP:ORGCRIT standard. CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Uganda. CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kantipur Gurkhas

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

Yet another article created for a Nepal Premier League team by editors ignoring the fact that these teams aren't notable enough for separate articles (there have been multiple AFDs for other NPL teams). No evidence this team is anywhere near passing WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, inactive group. Insufficiently sourced and due to the fact this group appears to be defunct, it's unlikely better sources will become available. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Israel, Palestine, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Most of the article is just quotations of the organisation's opinions and views. The coverage in the secondary sources does not appear significant either. Yue🌙 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janmat

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

Doesn't qualify for WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Has received very basic routine coverage which amounts it "this also exists". It is an alliance of minor parties without representation in any state legislature or national parliament, more than half of them don't even have their own articles. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Jharkhand. MrMkG (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. I feel the problem of no WP:SIGCOV and failure to meet WP:GNG still exists. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clicking on the External links Sash website brings up "Bad gateway" Error code 502. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The website works for me, so if it's not working for you, you can get it from Archive.org. I'll add some more links and references today. SASH is an active nonprofit working on sexual health, comparable in size and impact to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Sex_Therapy_and_Research TheoJarek (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of sexology organizations. Demt1298 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a study of sexual health professionals. They included SASH, the Society for Sex Therapy and Research (SSTAR), the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA), now known as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS). Authors chose these organizations because they were notable and represented a range of professionals in sex research, education, and therapy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Sex_Therapy_and_Research

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Scientific_Study_of_Sexuality TheoJarek (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of TheatreWorks (Silicon Valley) New Works

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. Indiscriminate list of festivals by highly specific organization. Created by single purpose account that only edits on TheatreWorks related page which is likely a public relations editing account. The list is likely substantially similar to a list previously deleted in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TheatreWorks_(Silicon_Valley)_Complete_repertoire Graywalls (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Theatre, Organizations, Companies, Lists, and California. Graywalls (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTIINFO/WP:LISTN. Nothing notable or remarkable about this list given there are zero references. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773:, I just also nominated a substantially similar one. I added it a day later.. please confirm if your input on the second is the same or different. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree this is similar. Both ought to be deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft per nominator. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 18:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Republican Party

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Political party represented in state legislature. By no means impossible to source, and WP:NEXIST applies here as it is not very easily to find regional news from India from 2003 online. --Soman (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haryana Gana Parishad

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this meets WP:NORG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Haryana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political party that had representation in the national parliament of India. Not impossible to source, and as per the number of references it is worth noting that there isn't a lot of 1999 material from Indian press online but WP:NEXIST more sources will exist offline in Indian national news media. --Soman (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". This article has been tagged as having no sources since December 2009. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading NEXIST. Here is a party in national parliament, so it is reasonable to assume that there would exist offline sources available in addition to the available online sources. And lack of sourcing is not a deletion criteria in itself (apart from BLP articles). --Soman (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Centre for Photography

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

Article appears to fail basic notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:GNG. Unreferenced and barely referenced in other articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incredibly promotional. No sources that appear to meet NCORP depth Traumnovelle (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riyasat Parjamandal

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

Unable to find enough sources to show that this topic meets WP:NORG. Redirection would have been a good ATD, but the only article that mentions this party is Ghagga, a town, which seems inappropriate as a target. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, India, and Punjab. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article name has a typo, it should be "Riyasat Prajamandal", "Riyasat Prajamandal" or "Riasti Praja Mandal". Notable political movement, see [1], [2], [3], [4] --Soman (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the article is notable and the article just needs some corrections. It’s better to improve the article rather than delete it. Since Soman has provided references above, I think it's justified for the article to remain on Wikipedia. Baqi:) (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asfour Crystal

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I noticed this was nominated over 10 years ago with a decision to keep. However those sources fail WP:SIRS as they are not in-depth. The criteria for companies are much more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 04:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Imcdc Contact 04:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First source is literally someone's review, the third source's domain has expired and the fourth source does not really support when it was founded. Sources I can find do not support notability. Procyon117 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:SIRS. Multiple issues tagged for years with no significant improvement. Was already deleted before by WP:PROD. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Egypt. Imcdc Contact 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

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

Despite its creation by a blocked sockpuppet, specifically User:Bhusungk, this political party was founded this year and has not yet participated in any elections. The article currently fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As a newly established regional political organization, it has not made notable contributions to regional or national political landscapes. Most sources are centered on initial news coverage reporting the party’s formation by a well-known actor, lacking substantial analysis or depth regarding the party’s policies, actions, or influence. There is no indication that the party has engaged in any significant political activities or initiatives that would establish its importance. Additionally, no reliable sources provide evidence of public or political recognition or electoral impact that would qualify it as a noteworthy political entity.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Tamil Nadu. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many sockpuppets of the original creator edited the article? And if I read the article correctly, a predecessor did contest elections. but yes, I have a promo-concern. The Banner talk 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Banner: I don’t have specific information regarding sockpuppets. The predecessor, however, was primarily a fan club rather than a political party. If the fan club meets notability standards, it might warrant a separate article. The current political entity does not appear notable at this time, which I interpret as aligning with WP:TOOSOON.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Owais Al Qarni, what kind of sources do you think would help Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam pass WP:GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), recently founded by actor Vijay, has demonstrated significant grassroots support by mobilizing thousands of youth across Tamil Nadu, positioning itself as a notable new political force focused on addressing regional issues and youth empowerment. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have no use for promo. What Wikipedia needs is relevant info, based on reliable, independent, quality sources. Per WP:RS. The Banner talk 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. There is ample evidence of Vijay founding the party. Abdullah099$55 (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because the party has not participated in any elections, doesn't make it less notable, the party was created 9 months ago from a 15 years old philanthropic fan club, especially since the recent massive political conference, TVK has already been established to be notable party in Tamil Nadu politics, as it was created by a very popular actor in India, also already got millions of memberships, the mainstream media has been covering everything, the article is supported with lots of reliable sources with significant coverage meeting the criterias of WP:GNG, and they have become more active in the past months with announcements of policies and resolutions and will probably be actively engaging in more political activities and campaign for the 2026 election. Yarohj (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique

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

This article is predicated on misunderstanding a single gov.uk webpage. The claimed customs union does not exist and thus has no sources. Much of the page is false, and what is true is in no way notable. It would be equivalent to having a page titled "Canada and Mexico" because they are both parties to NAFTA. Peetel (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above, this appears to be a legal term used by the British government for a trade agreement and appears to have no other use or purpose. Not seeing independent RS showing that this has notability outside of the British trade agreement. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – SACUM appears to be an abbreviation used solely by the cited legal document for the author's convenience. Yue🌙 00:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Economic Partnership Agreements#Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique. This is a trading entity which came to prominence because of BREXIT. Originally existing as an agreement with the EU without Mozambique, a new agreement with the UK was created to accommodate BREXIT and include Mozambique (as Mozambique had joined the EU agreement subsequently, but prior to BREXIT). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEWC Northern Ireland

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

I could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons. Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Northern Ireland, and Wales. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are two different nominations here. And my own recommendations are slightly different for both. Neither especially cut/dried. In terms of the:

CEWC-Cymru title, I think this should just be merged and redirected. To Welsh Centre for International Affairs. As, per the text and (granted primary) reference, the former charity now forms part of that organisation. And hence is a reasonable WP:ATD-R.
CEWC Northern Ireland title, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this should also be merged and redirected. To Council for Education in World Citizenship. Also as WP:ATD-R. Where the target would be updated so it is no longer a DAB page. But an article covering the "parent" org. I propose this because while, per nom, I do not see that the "CEWC Northern Ireland" org has/had independent notability, the "parent" org perhaps does. Much of the content at the Northern Ireland article could be merged to Council for Education in World Citizenship. With that title (no longer DAB) expanded to cover the concept as a whole. That org being the subject of significant coverage (as the primary topic) in at least one book and several journal articles. Indicating possible notability. There's certainly enough coverage for more than a stub (covering the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland "branches" of the org)...

My 2x cents anyway... Guliolopez (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfordshire Historic Churches Trust

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

Could not find third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. Of the 2 sources, first one is its own website, the other is dead. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – added information and references for notability. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added sources are mostly thin from the ones I can read but provide more evidence of notability to the organization. Keep rationale here mostly WP:HEY. Recon rabbit 16:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Mental Health Association

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

Marked for notability concerns since December 2022. I could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, China, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything for this organization. The sourcing used is primary, so I'm not sure we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macintyre Art Advisory

AfDs for this article:

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

Created by a single edit editor. Last AfD was withdrawn for technical reasons for being nominated by a sock. This fails WP:ORG and GNG and has been marked for notability concerns for 9 years. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find coverage of this organization. This is about all I can pull up [5], I don't think that's enough. The one source in the article now isn't enough either. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Having one source is as good as original research, which is not what we do. I don’t see how organizing a single exhibit is notable. Bearian (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HK Alfa

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

Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any significant coverage anywhere with the exception of database websites. Also, the club existed only for 4 years. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough coverage and GNG is not met in any case. --Tone 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Team played in the top-level Slovenian league, which receives significant coverage in the national media. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And? Provide that "significant coverage" that covers HK Alfa then, and as you have been told at some other AfDs, playing in a league does NOT guarantee notability anymore since the notability system was overhauled in 2022, they simply need to pass WP:GNG regardless of which league they play in. If the league receives "significant coverage", it would only make the league notable, and not all of its clubs, especially not some random amateur clubs that only existed for 4 seasons. And there is no second division anyway, so "top-level" doesn't mean much, they didn't need to climb to this division, Slovenian ice hockey only has like 6 teams, of which only 2-3 are professional while other are "hobby clubs", including Alfa. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Cities of Peace

AfDs for this article:

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted article WP:REFBOMBED with passing mentions and press releases of individual cities becoming international cities for peace, which don't really provide significant coverage of the organization as a whole. Even the one "publication reference" that I was able to access through The Wikipedia Library doesn't provide anything close to significant coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pppery, for the feedback. I understand the concerns about notability and the type of references currently used. I am working to find more sources that offer comprehensive coverage of International Cities of Peace as an organization rather than passing mentions of individual cities joining the network.

I believe International Cities of Peace has demonstrated significant global impact as it has been active in hundreds of cities worldwide, promoting peace initiatives and even achieving Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I’ll focus on finding additional independent, reliable sources that address this organizational reach.

Thank you again for your guidance, and I’m open to any further suggestions on how to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. WAASI TECH (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above reply came up as 76% AI-written on gptzero.me. Left guide (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will monitor and help with this. I have read the article and find the organization has merit. Thanks to Wassi Tech and Pppery for the discussion. I will check to see if guidelines are followed. Be back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See major edit 11-03-24 and, if agreeable, remove from sorting lists. Additional suggestions/improve welcome. Vritta100 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion sorting lists are a way of cataloging deletion discussions that are open. Open discussions (and this discussion will stay open until at least November 5, likely longer) are almost never removed from the list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated three strategies for keeping this article:

1. I am researching a broader sourcing of references for the organization. To date, as noted in the Article, coverage of International Cities of Peace is included in many global media sources, including the BBC, The China Daily, the Westerly Sun, Ashland, Oregon News, Belfast Live, Irish Central, iTV, New Horizon, and many others; Publication mentions: Weifang Openings, Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict, International Peaceful Cities Series. What is included has value but more will be needed.

2. Will help edit the article for complete adherence to Wikipedia protocols. Suggestions are welcomed from other editors. This will, hopefully, be completed over the next week.

3. I will investigate the overall vision, mission, and goals of the organization. This NGO is in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC and has representation at the United Nations in both New York and Geneva. The intent of the organization is to create value at the grassroots level. The organization is fifteen years old and has shown growth. Clarity is needed but I'm willing to put in time to make the Article meet Wikipedia standards.

This will take some time. I hope we editors can have a bit of patience before deleting because the above strategies, hopefully, will clarify and add value. Rather than delete, improve. Back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Have completed in draft form more substantive, non-promotional copy and will implement with REF, etc. Still sourcing known hard copy publications but waiting on verified citations. Ready to add seven new articles from several countries, including Ghana, UK, Denmark, Togo, and United States. Going well. Wiki protocol followed in all. Other help will be welcomed, especially from potential Lexis-Nexis support. Let me know. Thank you. Vritta100 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major edit and minor edit, Sunday, Nov. 3rd. Text more substantive and to the point. Citations follow Wiki guidelines. Resources include multinational news media, including Ghana, Togo, China, United States, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Publications and journals with articles and mentions included, particularly a series of books entitled "International Cities of Peace" as a result of International Cities of Peace working with UNESCO Chair of Peace Studies. In addition, impact shown with practical work in five Cities of Peace: Argentina, Denmark, Nigeria, China, and Kenya. Improved statements of vision and mission, along with organizational structure. Much research done to verify information and citations. Thanks to WASSI TECH for initiation of the page as well as Pppery for notification of problems. Will work with all editors on improvements. Please remove the Deletion notice and Deletion listing. Vritta100 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessArt

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

I stand by my original PROD reason, which was that it seems unlikely there will be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG.

The Guardian article cited is written by Briggs and seems to be more about her opinions on art than the organisation itself. All the other coverage I've been able to find such as this 2002 article also from the Guardian barely goes beyond mentioning the name.

Deprodded with the reason charity affects education and culture for millions of young people nationally, which is a valid CCS preventing A7, but WP:NONPROFIT are still required to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which I have not been able to find. There are some brief mentions in trade journals, but they rarely go beyond just a name check. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find scattered mentions of this charity [6], [7] and [8]. Trivial mentions, not enough to build an article. Barely much more found in the refs now used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: With an active fee-paying membership of 22,000 schools (together educating the majority of children in the UK), and with each school providing coverage of the charity's educational materials and each referring to the charity's guidelines when shaping their curriculums... coverage by the schools should be considered as significant, independent and reliable. ArtDataArt (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groww

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, but no indication the issues raised at the prior AfDs have been addressed. A search is hard due to the name, but no indication of N:CORP. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure why this page is nominated, when there are ample amount of third-party secondary sources cited for largest broker in India (Groww). Google search results easily show numerous articles with deep-dive into this unicorn's background, starting from getting funding form Y Combinator to moving past Zerodha and then to be awarded as 'Forbes India Leadership Award 2024' for Promising Startup.--Curvasingh (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to me leaving a !vote, I am hoping you can point out the WP:THREE you feel meet the guidelines outlined in WP:ORGCRIT? I have started going through the references but there is a lot of churnalism and routine announcements so hoping as the creator you can point me in the right direction. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many reliable sources but I will point out these sources to claim notability:

--Curvasingh (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Groww is India's largest stock broker right now. There is no point in nominating this page for deletion. Saura376 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC) — Saura376 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources mentioned above may be helpful in determining whether they count or establish notability of the company in question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable sources covering the company. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment - Most of these sources were evaluated in the previous deletion discussion. However, I evaluated them a second time to either confirm that assessment or not.

1. Forbes India is not Forbes. It must be evaluated with care. This reference was previously assessed and I would agree with that assessment. The reference looks like it was written by the company itself based on the details information, quotes, and use of images and infographics that are promotional to the company.

2. LiveMint - I would not consider this source reliable at all. I can go to Fiverr or Upwork and pay to have my own article written for the publication. Not saying this one is, but do not trust a publication that doesn't always differentiate between paid press and organic press. If it is found to be reliable, this particular reference is similar to the Forbes India one above. Tons of quotes and graphics for the company.

3. Times of India - This is a reference published since the last AfD discussion. Clearly falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable.

4. Forbes India - This one is similar to the other Forbes India reference. However, the promotional tone appears to be from the publication's own research as to why the company won the award. It also appeared in print version so I would say this would be within the rhelm of ORGCRIT.

5. LiveMint - Same as 2.

6. Economic Times - Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and the first sentence starts with the location the news is coming from, indicating a press release or churnalism.

7. Business Today - Interview which would not meet ORGCRIT

8. Money Control - Same as LiveMint.

I can only see one source that would probably meet ORGCRIT. I also see a heavy push by SPA's and likely COI editors in the previous and current editing. If kept, the page will need cleaned up for NPOV. If deleted, salting may be in order to save time of volunteer editors. If anyone wants to discuss the individual sources assessed above please do so as I may have missed something and will gladly look at any additional information. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 Here is one article from Forbes, not Forbes India -> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/investing/groww-vs-zerodha/ --Curvasingh (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORBESCON. Source is not usable for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 There are many sources from the The Hindu also:

--Curvasingh (talk) 09:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement

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

Article about a very small political party that claims a few thousand members and has failed to get anyone elected to anything, securing 0.08% of the vote. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam, and Iraq. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Incomplete text, add more headlines, history, steps of the movement, UzbukUdash (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in draftifying an article on a non-notable topic, because no amount of editing will make it ready for mainspace. The issue isn’t the lack of headlines or detail. Quite the reverse - as it stands there is a lot of detail about a non-notable topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't get your pettyness, really. There is no clear rule on Wikipedia on the notability of political parties and there are literally countless examples of articles for parties of this extent on the encyclopedia, as I already argued on your talk page (but which you simply ignored; thanks for the "respectfulness" by the way). Anyways, if you can find a majority which supports the deletion of this article, I'd suggest making the text a subsection of the Kurdistan Islamic Movement, the party which the Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement split from.--Ermanarich (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded politely to your message on my talk page. I just don't agree with you. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address any of my points. There are no rules on Wikipedia about when a party is notable or not. And you didn't go after any of the other examples of parties that are as small as this one I showed you as an example to get them deleted either. So what really is your point here? -- Ermanarich (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Navigation on Essequibo and adjacent Rivers

AfDs for this article:

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

Possible copyright infringement. The Dutch Wikipedia article was deleted because it was not clear where and when the text was first published and by whom; copyright infringement could not be ruled out. Same applies here; the first version of the english-language text is a straightforward translation from a Dutch original, possibly written by the same author of the Wikipedia articles, that appears to have been published in 2021 by the Bibliotheek van Zeeland. It has to be assumed that the Bibliotheek van Zeeland is the owner of the copyright. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Netherlands. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deletion discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. And paragraph 3 and 4 of this publication, is the original version. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until the copyright issues can be resolved and the page rewritten. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will trust Ruud's research on the copyrights. Thank you for investing time in this, Ruud! No objection to draftification, if someone wants to work on this. I have basically moved texts around so did not mitigate any copyvio issues. Only structural ones. gidonb (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, @Gidonb! I have mixed feelings about this. The topic of this article, SvE for short, is notable. Thanks to your effort to write a lead section, it survived the first AfD discussion. I am sure that researchers on slave trade would be very interested to know more about this trading company, that was small and short-lived, but certainly relevant. What needs to be clarified is if this article, published by Zeeland Library, is copyright protected. The third and fourth paragraphs, as well as the literature and references, are identical to the first version of this WP article on the SvE. If I understand the disclaimer correctly, the text is not intended for commercial use and the library does not take responsibility for improper use. In my view, the text cannot be published as is on Wikipedia. The Encyclopedie van Zeeland, another publication by Zeeland Library, also carries the same text. Since the EvZ does not have a disclaimer, we have to assume that the EvZ is copyright protected. For a Wikipedia article on SvE, the text needs more work. In my view, for example, the section on Essequibo at the start of the fourth Anglo-Dutch war, is only indirectly relevant for the SvE. The two main sections of the article really are two different topics. Unfortunately, this article cannot be cleaned up. It has to be deleted for copyright violation. A new article has to be created from scratch. I will have to leave that to someone else. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some consensus here that the topic itself is likely notable. If that's the case, copyright violations, if any, can be removed editorially. Feel free to trim the article down to a stub if needed. No need to wait until the AfD is closed. We can then delete any revision that included the violating content, without the need to remove the subject. Please note that per WP:DRAFTNO, draftification is not a valid approach to dealing with copyright violations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely minor left-wing group, no notability established. Attempts to find RS come up blank, article is nearly 100% WP:SELFPUB violation. No likelihood for improvement.

Was discussed at an AFD around 13 years ago and adjourned as Keep, vague reason seems to be "sources exist" but given there's been no improvement in 13 years I don't think that defence really stands, nor can be established at this time. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As original author 20 years ago I agree with the deletion. Secretlondon (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 years or 13 weeks, we're not on a deadline. The previous discussion did not have a "vague reason", there were two explicit sources cited: Marilyn Vogt-Downey's (1993) "The USSR 1987-1991: Marxist Perspectives" (ISBN 9780391037724), which has 7-8 pages on the organisation, and a 1994 South African law report discussing a case against the Electoral Commission involving the WIRFI. I see mention in John Kelly's (2018) "Contemporary Trotskyism: Parties, Sects and Social Movements in Britain" ISBN 9781317368946 and further discussions of the South African case in other sources (eg South African Labour News, p.5), frequently in the context of constitutional law. While not in principle opposed to a merge, as far as I can see there's not a natural target given the number of splits, so I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but happy to reconsider. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn those two sources were explicitly mentioned but it's never demonstrated they provide the sustained discussion necessary to meet GNG. For example that first source doesn't actually state it has 7-8 pages on the organisation, instead it states it documents 'comments presented by a few participants in the... conference organised by the Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International'. So is it about the group? Were all the participants members of this group? Is it just a long list of quotes from a conference? Answer is we don't know. And the same goes for the presenting of a book on South African court cases, where just naming the book doesn't actually detail what depth it goes into about the group (if really at all). That's why I regarded is as a vague "sources exist" because it's not actually demonstrated whether those sources are indeed suitable.

If anything I think this really works as a good example of one of my biggest pet peeves with Wikipedia which when editors list sources in AfDs as an argument for Keep but they then don't add them to the article. If editors add them then it actually demonstrates they're good sources and renders the AfD moot (because the article has now been improved and it meets GNG), but simply mentioning sources in the AfD and doing nothing with them not only fails to improve the article but rather unfairly implies they're good sources without having used them and adds effectively "phantom weight" to the argument for Keep.

As to "we're not on a deadline", then I'd argue that also applies as an argument for delete given that if in the future sources are actually demonstrated to support the existence of the article it can just be recreated. However if after 13 years there has been no discernible improvement of the article, including a failure to utilise sources listed at said previous AfD, then it does suggest that there is no realistic prospect of improvement and therefore should be deleted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rambling Rambler, I'll only respond to the philosophical comments by emphasising WP:NEXIST which reflects community consensus. I elaborated on the references referred to in the previous AfD explicitly indicating what they were - which was lacking in your nomination statement as I disagreed with your summary of the discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There appears to be some significant coverage of the group in independent sources; I support keeping the article and expanding on said coverage, specifically in regard to the South Africa case. Yue🌙 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Safety Authority

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

E-safety authority, has not been formally established. While it has been approved in a cabinet meeting, this does not constitute actual creation. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether an organisation has officially commenced operations or not is not relevant to notability. The fact that it is a government agency with a legal basis means it is highly likely to commence operations, anyway. We need to know whether the authority has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well a point I forgot to mention is that usually as per my knowledge after cabinet approval the act has to pass through parliament to come into force. Cabinet approval means that the Federal Cabinet has no issue with the act. Wikibear47 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a proposed entity that has received some coverage in 2023, but I don’t believe it meets NORG since there isn’t any sustained coverage. Imv, it falls under WP:TOOSOON. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As an only proposed government entity, it is WP:TOOSOON for this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying would be an acceptable WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: as an ATD. I agree with the TOOSOON concerns and there's been no coverage of this agency since the announcement that I can see. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would editors be satisfied with draftification at this point since this just might be TOOSOON?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, Yes, draftification would be a good idea for now. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liangyou Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Previous WP:PROD concerns still not addressed after many years. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and China. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (soft) per nom. There’s no English language coverage of this company. If you find anything, please ping us. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian (talk · contribs), I've found Chinese-language sources that I've posted below. Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Luo, Yuyue 罗嵛月 (2015-04-15). "良友食用油曾经是上海老大，如今却输给金龙鱼" [Liangyou's edible oil was once the leader in Shanghai, but now it has lost to Golden Dragon Fish]. China Business News [zh] (in Chinese). Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via China Business Network.
  This article has a lot of negative coverage about Liangyou's business failures and also covers the company's history. The article notes: "据《第一财经日报》记者多方了解，这家2011年总资产已达154亿元、全年销售收入165亿元的老牌国企，这几年却不尽如人意。食用油是良友的主营业务之一，良友集团原领导曾有“海狮兴，则良友兴”的论断，一位资深业内人士如此告诉本报记者。现实非常残酷，上海作为良友的总部，占尽“主场”便利，良友不仅输给了跨国粮油品牌金龙鱼，在央企品牌福临门和台湾品牌多力冲击下，良友也应对乏力，市场份额下滑。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the reporter of China Business News, this old state-owned enterprise, which had total assets of 15.4 billion yuan in 2011 and annual sales revenue of 16.5 billion yuan, has not been satisfactory in recent years. Edible oil is one of Liangyou's main businesses. The former leader of Liangyou Group once said that "if Sea Lion prospers, Liangyou will prosper", a senior industry insider told our reporter. The reality is very cruel. As the headquarters of Liangyou, Shanghai has the convenience of "home court". Liangyou not only lost to the multinational grain and oil brand Golden Dragon Fish, but also failed to cope with the impact of the central enterprise brand Fortune and the Taiwanese brand Duoli, and its market share declined."
  The article notes: "市场人士分析，良友食用油售价低，是因为作为国企，担负了上海市平抑物价的责任，企业品牌投入资金相对较少。这导致良友在市场竞争中非常不利。"
  From Google Translate: "Market analysts analyzed that the low price of Liangyou cooking oil is because, as a state-owned enterprise, it bears the responsibility of stabilizing prices in Shanghai, and the company's brand investment is relatively small. This puts Liangyou at a great disadvantage in market competition."
2. "中国经济 '99" [China Economy '99]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). 1999. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "公司建于 1998 年 10 月,目前已开业 100 家“良友便利”连锁店。未来发展目标是三年内建成 300 家连锁便利店。上海良友集团是根据国务院《关于进一步深化粮食流通体制改革的决定》精神,经中共上海市委、市人民政府批准,以国有骨干粮食企业为主体,于 1998 年 8 月 8日成立。上海良友(集团)有限公司是上海良友集团的核心企业,注册资金 17 亿元人民币。主要经营:粮油批发、加工,资产经营,实业投资,房地产开发经营及物业管理,科研开发,咨询服务,国内贸易等。下辖 7 个全资子公司, 2 个控股子公司。上海良友集团承担上海粮食市场流通主渠道任务。"
  From Google Translate: "The company was established in October 1998 and currently has 100 "Liangyou Convenience" chain stores in operation. The future development goal is to build 300 chain convenience stores within three years. Shanghai Liangyou Group was established on August 8, 1998, based on the spirit of the State Council's "Decision on Further Deepening the Reform of the Grain Circulation System", approved by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Communist Party of China and the Municipal People's Government, with state-owned backbone grain enterprises as the main body. Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. is the core enterprise of Shanghai Liangyou Group with a registered capital of RMB 1.7 billion. Main business: grain and oil wholesale, processing, asset management, industrial investment, real estate development and operation and property management, scientific research and development, consulting services, domestic trade, etc. It has 7 wholly-owned subsidiaries and 2 holding subsidiaries. Shanghai Liangyou Group undertakes the main channel task of Shanghai grain market circulation."
3. Li, Jianzhi 李建致 (2019). "沐浴春风成长壮大——上海良友集团二十年之发展认领" [Growing Strong in the Spring Breeze: The 20-Year Development of Shanghai Liangyou Group]. 商业企业 [Commercial Enterprise] (in Chinese). No. 6. pp. 28–31. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via CQVIP [zh].
  The abstract notes: "1998年,上海良友(集团)有限公司成立,从此粮油企业和职工,真正步人市场竞争的大海;2000年,改革、调整和转型,良友企业焕发出新的生机;2015年,联合重组,打造实力,良友集团风华正茂,昂首阔步。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1998, Shanghai Liangyou (Group) Co., Ltd. was established. Since then, grain and oil enterprises and employees have truly stepped into the sea of market competition; in 2000, reform, adjustment and transformation, Liangyou Enterprises have regained new vitality; in 2015, joint reorganization and strength building, Liangyou Group is in its prime and strides forward."
4. Liu, Lijing 刘丽靓 (2015-05-08). "光明食品集团与上海良友集团联合重组" [Bright Food Group and Shanghai Liangyou Group Jointly Restructured]. China Securities Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2024-10-26 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "上海良友集团是上海从事粮食经营的国有企业集团，承担着政府委托或指定的职能，为保障上海粮食安全和供给稳定服务。其经营领域涵盖粮油加工、仓储物流、便利连锁、粮油贸易、进出口业务、实业投资等。集团下属20家全资、控股子公司和13家参股公司，以及国家级粮油制品检验检测中心和上海市级集团技术中心。经过多年发展，旗下拥有海狮、乐惠、雪雀（福新）、味都、三添、友益等上海市著名商标和上海名牌产品，主要粮油产品上海市场占有率名列前茅。"
  From Google Translate: "Shanghai Liangyou Group is a state-owned enterprise group engaged in grain business in Shanghai. It undertakes the functions entrusted or designated by the government to serve the guarantee of Shanghai's grain security and stable supply. Its business areas cover grain and oil processing, warehousing and logistics, convenience chain, grain and oil trade, import and export business, industrial investment, etc. The group has 20 wholly-owned and holding subsidiaries and 13 joint-stock companies, as well as a national grain and oil product inspection and testing center and a Shanghai-level group technology center. After years of development, it owns Shanghai's famous trademarks and Shanghai famous brand products such as Sea Lion, Lehui, Snow Bird (Fuxin), Weidu, Santian, and Youyi. The market share of its main grain and oil products in Shanghai ranks among the top."
5. "日本九州农协与上海签订2000吨日本米出口协议" [The Kyushu Agricultural Cooperative in Japan has signed an export agreement for 2,000 tons of Japanese rice with Shanghai]. 中经网 [China Economic Net] (in Chinese). 2007-12-04.
  The article notes: "报道称，承销这批大米的是在中国具有大米专卖权的“良友集团”旗下的“上海良友公司”。"
  From Google Translate: "The report states that the underwriter of this batch of rice is "Shanghai Liangyou Company," which is under the "Liangyou Group," a company that has exclusive rights to sell rice in China."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shanghai Liangyou Group (simplified Chinese: 上海良友集团有限公司; traditional Chinese: 上海良友集團有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources found by Cunard added to the article, then I’m going along with a Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a further review of newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Party (Turkey)

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

Yet another Turkish political party article with no cites at all. I have not found enough to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The party had a short life, but received a lot of media coverage, such as [9]. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheJoyfulTentmaker; it's not unreasonable to think that there was extensive WP:OFFLINE coverage that a simple online WP:BEFORE won't show. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehazkim

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

Based on the sourcing in this article, the organisation does not meet WP:NCORP. The Hebrew article isn’t any help in terms of additional sources that would show the topic is notable. There may be better sources in Hebrew that I can’t find, but if not I think this should be deleted, Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recognized association in Israel (link here & here), It's also known for it's political activities (some English sources: 1, 2, 3). I don't think the article should be deleted, but I'll respect the community decision. אקסינו (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it covers an important progressive movement in Israel that has made a significant impact on social and political issues. The group has been involved in campaigns for environmental protection, human rights, and social justice, which have received media attention. There are reliable sources that show the group's importance, including news articles and reports about its activities. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just being officially registered does not make the organisation notable. Where is the in depth coverage of it in reliable independent sources? Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are two very basic problems with this article: [1] How is it notable? It's a small organization. References are passing mentions or not independent. Sources are hard to find – tag me if found – since מחזקים is a common Hebrew word. [2] Where does this article/organization fit in with the rest of Wikipedia? The organization exists and has some activities and impact. It can be mentioned elsewhere, for example at the New Israel Fund, yet hasn't been organically included in ANY other articles. The latter nixes a redirect. The interests are broad so no immediate (highly selective) merge destination comes to mind. Sticking with the NIF example, it is obviously not a subsidiary. It may belong somewhere in the discussion of NIF but we do not know that for sure, nor how to include Mehazkim. [1] and [2] lead to delete. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

Organizations deletion

Janakpur Bolts

Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response

Kings Kids Africa Foundation

Kantipur Gurkhas

Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians

Janmat

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

List of TheatreWorks (Silicon Valley) New Works

Haryana Republican Party

Haryana Gana Parishad

New Zealand Centre for Photography

Riyasat Parjamandal

Asfour Crystal

Challenger Limited

Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam

Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique

CEWC Northern Ireland

Oxfordshire Historic Churches Trust

Chinese Mental Health Association

Macintyre Art Advisory

HK Alfa

International Cities of Peace

AccessArt

Groww

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement

Society for Navigation on Essequibo and adjacent Rivers

Workers International to Rebuild the Fourth International

E-Safety Authority

Liangyou Group

Peace Party (Turkey)

Mehazkim

Proposed deletions

Categories

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.