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:

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

Vintage Real Estate

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Previously speedy deleted. Recreated by WP:SPA. Imcdc Contact 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and California. Imcdc Contact 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fred Sands: as an ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Young Liberals (UK)

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

Only one source is independent and third party (Guardian) but does not mention article subject at all. Lists of members names feels like WP:PROMO, or WP:NOTDIR. Looked for sources but nothing with WP:SIGCOV - most mention orgs with the same name in other countries.

I have also nominated English Young Liberals, Welsh Young Liberals and Scottish Young Liberals for deletion, if sources could be found they could be redirected to this article however there have been templates seeking verification on this article since 2020. All would be best redirected to Liberal Democrats (UK) Orange sticker (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What troubles me here is the led indicates it is not the same org as National League of Young Liberals because the liberal democrats are not the same thing as the Liberals. My knowledge of UK politics might be lacking here. I worry about promo tone on Luisa Porritt. Czarking0 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Young Liberals

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

Most sources are not independent or third party, or do not mention subject at all. Could not find WP:SIGCOV. Orange sticker (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Young Liberals

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

No independent, third party sources. Can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Orange sticker (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Young Liberals

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

No independent or third-party sources. Structure section just consists of a list of names which seems like WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in Google News, one passing mention in Google Books. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Orange sticker (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but in dire need of improvement — I would certainly prefer it being kept as opposed to deleted. Failing that I would prefer it be draft-ified or the like.

I had previously stub-ified the artcle by removing vast amounts of content in this edit and here. I was hesitant to do such but believed it to be needed due to verifibility concerns and to avoid a directory article. After that I'd put it on my radar of pages needing additional content.

I believe that EYL scrapes GNG, from a quick gander using the book search, it seems to be mentioned at least in more than one book (Though firefox seems to be preventing me from using preview to look in the books rather annoyingly), though as you said no significant news coverage. I may be mistaken, but I believe the EYL have had some different names in their past as well which may have better coverage, but I'm struggling to recall or pull up what they were (Which doesn't really help the case I suppose).

I'm under no illusion that this isn't a weak case from me however, and I believe you're right to have brought this up Bejakyo (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book mentions may be a reference to National League of Young Liberals which is not the same org Czarking0 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Committee of Concerned Journalists

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 17 years ago with promises to work on the article. I'm not finding significant coverage and with this organization no longer existing unlikely to be any new sources generated. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Organizations, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khair University

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Party

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

This is a small, single state, third-party in the United States which has as of this nomination only contested a single election. Fails WP:NORG. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Kentucky. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign or 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky. Obviously not a real party, just a mechanism to get her on the ballot in that state since she couldn't as a Green for some reason. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I filled in the number of votes and percentage from the Kentucky State site. The second source here says that to form a party you have to get 2% of the vote, and Stein got 0%. I assume that now the proposed party will not be an official Kentucky party, at least until another attempt to create it and get the votes. The "party" is not mentioned in Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign, and is simply listed next to Stein's name in the 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky. I suppose there could be a redirect to that, but unless information is added to that article, at least in the form of a source, the redirect won't be very useful. There is only one reasonable source; others are just mentions. Lamona (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Protective Coatings

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

Unreferenced for 19 years. A search for sources only yielded industry related press. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Association for Materials Protection and Performance, which has absorbed this organization and whose page has actual sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian civil disobedience in the United States

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

Article about an unnotale/unneccesary topic. I don't think there is a need for a Wikipedia article on Libertarian civil disobedience, since there are no similar articles about Conservative or Liberal civil disobidience. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please see Category:Civil disobedience in the United States. This is but one of many. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:OR considering the many anachronisms. We need a secondary source discussion of this, not lists of examples. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justo Lamas

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

I cannot find evidence of Lamas' notability as a singer nor for his company which is a worthwhile educational initiative but doesn't appear notable. Coverage appears to be churnalism that is otherwise non independent. There are a lot of hits noting one of the company's artists is performing and some related to someone else of this name, but I cannot find anything of depth. Star Mississippi 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Organizations, Companies, Education, and Argentina. Star Mississippi 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Residential Cleaning Services International

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about their work in reliable sources to establish their significance -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability, mostly the organization's own self-published content about itself but also some content self-published by other directly affiliated entities, with not even one GNG-worthy source shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hearth Party

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

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Lives

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

Almost entirely primary sourced, some trivial mentions from reliable sources. Beyond that, no independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Ireland, United Kingdom, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Progressives

AfDs for this article:

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

No inherent notability, has little notice from independent sources. No electoral success and has been de-registered by the Australian Electoral Commission for 2 years Flat Out (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Flat Out (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this is the third nomination and that the last nomination failed to reach consensus, however the article is largely unsourced and has mostly only passing mentions in independent sources. Flat Out (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find one secondary source (already in use in the article), which is reliable and which covers the party in depth. I've just read the arguments from previous AFDs and it seems that some participants in those thought that our notability guidelines should be relaxed when it comes to minor political parties. That argument has no basis in WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 08:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Dearth of reliable sources, political parties are not inherently notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haringey Solidarity Group

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

Extremely minor anarchist group, little evidence to demonstrate notability. Large absence of independent RS. Attempts to find sources largely fruitless, references in Scholar results predominantly self-published works or very brief mentions that aren't the subject of the article. PROD opposed due to results flagged in Google Books but from those accessible look to be unrelated. Delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real signs of notoriety here. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there's mentions of this local London-based group in a number of books, I haven't found sufficient coverage for it to pass the GNG or WP:NORG. Rupples (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian League

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

Very minor, short-lived political party with no impact. None of the sources provide significant attention, the fourth one doesn't even mention the party. Fram (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet the notability criteria under WP:GNG, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Additionally, WP:NORG is not satisfied. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 16:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:GNG and WP:NORG are not met. As noted by the nom, the only sources in the article are either directory-style webpages (the database/registry entries expected for any such org) or, as noted, webpages which do not mention the org at all. Outside the article, my own WP:BEFORE has returned only trivial passing mentions like this or this - seemingly confirming the named candidate's association with the party, but not anywhere near the type/depth of coverage needed to establish NORG. Guliolopez (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of health insurance executives in the United States

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

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. Even if this does stay it should be broadened to List of health insurance chief executives (Similar to Category:American_health_care_chief_executives) and be a category, not a random listicle only including the "top 50". Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, and Lists. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This clearly has become an important topic of discussion. Deleting will lead to cries of Wikipedia bias and appear to favor one or another view on the event that led to the creation of the article. It will continue to be an important topic of discussion. There are lists of well-noted leaders of other industries, this should be no different. DharmaDrummer (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or extensively rework, per Jcmcc450. While there might be a place for an article with this title, it would have to have a much broader scope - including both present and past executives for said companies, expanding the number of companies discussed, and adding more information about the health insurance executives themselves such as their tenure. The sourcing would also have to be far stronger, beyond merely the pages for the health insurance companies themselves. This would likely be a rework so fudnamental that it would render the article unrecognizable, but it is the only good alternative to deletion. As it stands, considering current events, the 'Notable former executives' section, and the timing of its creation, this reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a hit list. RWall514 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the top 50 companies by whatever metric is arbitrary. I suggest having the article list the chief executive of companies notable by Wikipedia's standards is a better scope and have updated the article to reflect that. Also see List of chief executive officers. It seems like the article can likely be improved as an alternative to deletion. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Timing is very suspect and does make it much harder to search for sources under WP:NLIST, but I couldn't find anything independent of the recent shooting that mentions the CEO's as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this isn't List of health insurance executives in the United States on a hit list, so I don't think the dependence of the shooting should negate those sources. I'm not advocating that though. I also think delete because the grouping is not significantly covered. Conyo14 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chief executives of health insurance companies have been covered in reliable & secondary sources over several years as a group in the context of executive compensation (NPR, STAT News, Becker's Hospital Review, STAT News, Hartford Courant) and more recently, the context of security (The Hill, STAT News). GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't whether or not it is sourced, but notable. The grouping (CEO's of health insurance executives in the United States) doesn't appear to be notable or specifically sourced in any way. This is why it fails WP:CROSSCAT. If this were a category (not a list-article) of all health-related organization CEO's past and present would be far more appropriate as it could be used to support the project. As it stands, even if this were converted to a category, it would be very challenging to maintain (keeping it up to date with the "current" CEO's and only applying it to specifically the top 50 Health insurance Orgs again, subject to change) Jcmcc (Talk) 00:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as failing WP:CROSSCAT and WP:NLIST. The timing, the mention of Johnson and the fact that the only detail is about compensation packages is highly suspect and the article creator should probably be on a list somewhere. Astaire (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're arguing for more lists, not less. 120.22.16.98 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Feels suspect re timing, and we don't need articles simply listing execs in particular industires. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than Delete due to WP:CROSSCAT, the article should become wider, such as "List of health ensurance chief executives", period. Worldwide. This on its own should also mitigate the notability issue. As a Brazilian, I am willing to source executives from my country. MandRaiden (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Health insurance in the United States is enough for now. Dympies (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NLIST and the timing. Multiple previous vandal edits include "Hit" or "Hit List of chief executive officers Effective immediately".--Chefmikesf (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you bring up which kind of vandal edits were made to the page just highlights that the delete rationales are not based on Wikipedia policies or any reasoning. It does not fail the policy you linked for example because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and the timing is irrelevant to whether or not an article is to be kept. Per policy, decisions should be made not based on vote-counts but on rationales/reasoning/discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a part of what is arguably a historical event. make it larger and expand it to a worldwide scope maybe. but dont delete. MildLoser (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the Killing of Brian Thompson, then that article already exists as linked. Jcmcc (Talk) 17:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just textbook WP:RECENTISM. 1) We're not a crystal ball and so are in no position to establish if this is "arguably a historical event" (everything is a historical event, but we'll say a highly notable one). 2) This list, while hastily constructed by GH as a direct response to the killing of Brian Thompson, is highly incidental to it. 3) There's really no such thing as "expanding it to a worldwide scope", because for most health insurance executives even in the US, we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel here with this six-item list (arguably two of which don't even warrant their own article). And the US has the categorically most dramatically privatized health insurance system in the entire developed world that I know of and thus should yield the most notable health insurance executives. I would suggest that you try creating a concrete example worldwide list in your sandbox before suggesting that this be moved without any evidence that it would improve things. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RWall514. It would be good to convert this list into a table with more details about each like relevant qualifications. The timing for this list may be bad but one has to admit that currently there is a lot of discussion and news reports about the article's subject (btw due to that it's now a "culturally significant phenomenon"). More articles like it would be useful to e.g. compare politicians' qualifications or CEO salaries across countries. It does not fail WP:CROSSCAT, e.g. it's not a "cross-categorization" and is encyclopedic. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is a reference for public information. These people are of financial and medical note. I agree with MildLoser that it need not be exclusively US-focused. Amber388 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs. Naturally the list needs clear cut criteria, then it wouldn't be open ended but eventually come to a natural conclusion. The criteria shouldn't be too strict though, lest we cut the list short. We certainly shouldn't overshoot when deleting content. As for design, bullet points seem the logical choice but maybe a table instead would be better? Anyway, the page hits already show that the content is of interest. The listed CEOs so far all have articles, even with professional headshots, so clearly notability is given. Maybe a minimum annual salary would be a good criteria for inclusion. If it was based on that an international comparison could be educative. --SchallundRauch (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs" - that's not how this works. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Pokemon Test. Just because Vaporeon has a page, doesn't mean some CEO should have one. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 16:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See List of chief executive officers for a similar article that has been kept at AfD. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is not similar enough to warrant discussion (even if WP:WHATABOUT were generally valid), because your list is incredibly restrictive to the point of effective uselessness, whereas that one isn't. Being a chief executive officer of a company with over $10 billion in revenue is substantially less restrictive than being an executive of a health insurance company which operates in the United States. You'll note List of chief executive officers is 1) worldwide (something this article couldn't even benefit from expanding to because of the uniquely messed up state of US healthcare), and 2) operating in any kind of industry. Moreover, that article actually has a completely objective criterion to gatekeep inclusion in the form of "companies with revenue over $10 billion", whereas you cobbled this one together without regard for this sort of good, common practice in lists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as standard index of people by occupation per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. Should Category:American health care chief executives be deleted? Expand and improve. Mbdfar (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep* Note there are several other pages with executives of various companies and industries, like this List of Paramount Pictures executives or the List of railroad executives. This deletion request is clearly related to recent events, and this article is also clearly related to them with its timing – however, just because the timing of the article creation lines up with something doesn't mean that this article is inappropriate. If we have something as niche as a list of Paramount Pictures executives, then a list of health insurance executives is far more important to be included. Kopf1988 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This kind of textbook whataboutist argument often gets brought up at AfD discussions, and it isn't compelling. 1) Whereas List of Paramount Pictures executives has actual, unambiguous criteria, this list in the nom clearly doesn't (see, for example, what I talked about on the talk page). 2) I would argue that because they're never seemingly discussed in reliable, independent sources as a group that 'List of Paramount Pictures executives' probably ought to be axed itself. 3) List of railroad executives should be cleaned up to remove those without a corresponding article, but here's something you're failing to grasp here: that list is able to be so long because it has two only criteria – firstly, you need to be in the railroad industry, and secondly, you need to be an executive.

List of health insurance executives in the United States is so, so lacking in blue links because the following criteria need to be met: a) in the insurance industry; b) specifically in health insurance; c) an executive; d) in the United States; and (unstated because this list was created for soapboxing and thus the inclusion criteria are vague and clumsily established) e) you should be a current executive of the company. The inclusion criteria are both hyper-specific in the kind of job you have to be in (like 'List of Paramount Pictures executives') but simultaneously completely unclear as to the threshold for inclusion (like 'List of railroad executives, where even redlinks are included seemingly at random). Thus, you get the worst facets of these two arguably poor lists you've cited. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists don't need to be strictly made of blue links per WP:AOAL, where it is encouraged to "include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list". Mbdfar (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. In taxonomic articles, where large portions end up being red links to child taxa which are themselves considered inherently notable, this is a crucial component to building out the encyclopedia. However, lists have to have some sort of defined, auditable scope that inherently constrains the size. As I noted at the talk page, these include 1) A title that automatically makes it so that people can easily audit when a list is complete (such as child taxa or officially licensed games made for a specific console), 2) an arbitrary cut-off of n elements based on a certain metric (such as cutting it off at the 50th or 100th most x thing), 3) a similar cut-off except defining a high floor for x instead of fixing the number of elements n (such as cutting off companies under $10 billion in revenue), and 4) only permitting list items which either already have a Wikipedia article or (if a red link) for which the notability isn't contentious. Often for criterion 4, articles will have a commented out subset of these items which may be notable but which don't currenlty have articles. This functions as a compromise for facilitating expansion while also not becoming a landfill for redlinks of questionable notability. The fact that GH wasn't even using redlinks and was just throwing in CEOs seemingly at random tells me they didn't care so much about expansion based on notability and moreso that they wanted to treat this list like an indiscriminate landfill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This list is hyper-specific and extremely poorly made in a way that it's only "useful" as construed by recent outrage spurred by the killing of Brian Thompson. You can see my suggestion on the article's talk page to make this a potentially viable list, and to my mind, it's clear nothing like that is actually workable. GeorgiaHuman's conduct since December 4th has shown me very clearly that this article was made with soapboxing in mind, not because they seriously thought that it meets something like WP:NLIST. Keep in mind that this nomination is currently being brigaded from Reddit (weird how with that, there's a sudden influx of 'keeps' after all the 'deletes'), and I think it's a serious wake-up call that we might want to keep these sorts of high-profile deletion discussions semi-protected to protect the integrity and make sure they're high-quality and based on policy instead of just off-site brigading from people with almost no grasp of policy or guidelines (edit: to clarify: at least in this case, /r/wikipedia is more likely to understand policy and guidelines, but brigading often comes from sources with literally no knowledge of these principles and derails discussion). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is specific, but not hyper-specific. List of United States insurance companies currently has almost 40 notable insurance companies. This list of CEOs, if kept, could potentially have several entries per company. Seems like an appropriate amount of content and useful for navigation. Mbdfar (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main caveat with List of United States insurance companies, which I did see when trying to give the nom a concrete inclusion criteria, is that every single one of the items (except one, which I'm going to remove as non-conforming with the others) have their own article (and as you can see, the fact that it's just companies and not tethered to health dramatically increases the number of articles listed; it's dramatically less specific because we axe two majorly limiting criteria from this one). It seems that ZimZalaBim did what I should've done a few days ago which is to remove all of the execs who weren't notable enough for their own articles (at least counteracting some of GH's worst tendencies as an editor), but even then, something like Sarah London and Jim Rechtin are very arguably non-notable (they were created recently as minimally cited stubs expressly as a response to the killing of Brian Thompson). And unfortunately, opening up this article to 'List of health insurance executives' probably doesn't help that either, simply because the US is – if I'm not mistaken – one of two developed countries in the world with this kind of absolutely screwed up private health insurance system, the other being Switzerland. And I'm sincerely doubtful more than even one Swiss health insurance exec is notable enough for inclusion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it used to resemble the top 40 list before people decided to delete half of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_health_insurance_executives_in_the_United_States&oldid=1262191393 Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reasoning of Users Kopf1988 and MildLoser. - L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider broadening the scope of the article per nom Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~ HAL333 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Close w/o prejudice for renom This article is undergoing an edit war over the inclusion criteria. I a disappointed in certain well established editors, who should know better than to enter in an edit war over this. [1] [2] The problem is the inclusion criteria, and we can't judge the article on its merits when that question isn't settled. This whole discussion would have been better resolved through an RfC, than by nominating the article at AfD and people blanking half of it. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and expand to different industries. Pedrogmartins (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NLIST. Rare examples of actual WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argumentation in this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep. This isn't currently a great list, but I don't think it's categorically improper under WP:CROSSCAT; that would be something like "list of insurance executives who play the accordion". Health insurance executive has been a well-recognized category of American executive for generations. Health insurance executives have featured, inter alia, as a group called before Congressional hearings and as the subjects of surveys (there could be numerous additional links for both of those). Discussions about them as a group (and their pay) have been a fixture of every wave of national health care discussion since at least the 1990s. I am inclined to agree with the comments above that the concerns over scope and quality of the list are best addressed by iterative improvement through the wiki process. That said, with an eye to such improvements, I think this would support the encyclopedia much better as part of a detailed List of health insurance companies in the United States, which could contain fields for CEO information and also put that information in a more meaningful context. (The existing List of United States insurance companies#Health insurance (major medical insurance) is sadly little more than a navigation aid, but could be the beginning of something.)
As an aside, I am concerned by the above bludgeoning of keep !voters with charges of whataboutism. There should be no place on Wikipedia for this kind of hostility to thoughtful dissent. Using WP:WHATABOUT to attempt to discredit any and all arguments from analogy simply reduces that essay to absurdity. After all, [a]nalogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. Moreover, our PAGs derive their legitimacy, if any, from accurately reflecting actual practice, so attempting to discount arguments simply for being based on actual practice is literally as far from a policy-based argument as it is possible to be. -- Visviva (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was going to say delete, but then looked at five or six other entries in Category:Lists_of_businesspeople, and they’re all way worse than this. So while maybe there’s a broader discussion to be had about how lists that just duplicate categories should all be culled, this article doesn’t just do that. And I’d argue, also, that it doesn’t fail CROSSCAT as it’s not an arbitrary selection of criteria; the US health insurance industry and the levels of recompense of its CEOs has been often discussed in print media, so the criteria are sufficiently interwoven. Fish+Karate 07:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CROSSCAT and failing WP:NLIST. A lot of the keep votes seem quite policy deficient, with arguments that amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, etc. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now This article was created a few days ago. I think it’s eminently reasonable to allow some time to ascertain whether WP:NLIST is met (my intuition says it can be shown to be if it hasn’t already been somewhere in the comments above).

I think the WP:CROSSCAT argument is rather weak since it interprets the policy as covering “Americans” as a group, which is a tight squeeze. That’s neither commonsensical nor supported by the extensive coverage in RS of the topic.

Is the timing of creation suspect? Well, perhaps, but also not really. Newsworthy events tend to draw editors’ attention to related topics, and it’s perfectly reasonable for the sort of editor who is brave enough to create articles to decide to do so after their attention was directed by news, or widespread internet discussion. And even if the creator had the motivations some above have ascribed to them, there is an extremely wide gap between an editor wanting, say, the names of a group they consider notable for bad behavior to be publicly visible in one place that Google likes, and creating a hit list. Their motivations don’t matter anyway here, since the decision rests on the usual inclusion standards and nothing else. The topic itself appears to be notable, a page as short as the current revision couldn’t conceivably be worth nuking, that should be that as far as I can see.

Per policy, there is no legitimate reason to bandy such terms around, and the delete voters are also making a lot of noise about keep votes being non-policy-based, while by eyeball estimate making fewer and shorter policy arguments themselves.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article cites multiple third-party list articles which themselves group these people together. Also, Wikipedia already has biographies on many of these people, and it is routine to make lists and categories for topics which have things in common, and are as a class the subject of reliable sources, and when topics in the list have Wikipedia articles. We do not need a comprehensive list in third party media to decide who to include. We just need to establish that sources have listed people in this category in any lists of any kind whether short or otherwise, and then we include people who meet those criteria when they also qualify for a Wikipedia article. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This List serves as a valuable and verifiable resource for users interested in understanding the leadership landscape within a critical industry that significantly impacts public policy, economics, and individual well-being. It's importance can be summarize in the following:

(1) Health insurance executives wield substantial influence over healthcare access, affordability, and policy-making in the U.S. By aggregating information about these individuals, the page provides a unique and relevant resource that highlights key players in this VERY high-impact field.

(2) This List is particularly useful for researchers, journalists, and policy analysts investigating trends in corporate governance, healthcare management, or industry consolidation. This List helps us understand the individuals who shape a critical sector of the U.S. economy!

(3) This List should be KEPT! In fact, if properly maintained with verifiable and reliable references, the page aligns with Wikipedia's standards for content reliability. Its continued existence should hinge on maintaining and improving the references, not deletion. We should ADD more to this list to cover ALL of the CEOs, their board members, and executive teams from ALL health insurers in the USA.

(4) ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY are enhanced when information about influential figures, like health insurance executives, is accessible. This aligns with Wikipedia's mission to democratize knowledge! Why are people even talking about gatekeeping this information 🤦

(5) Wikipedia already hosts numerous lists, such as "List of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies," which serve as templates for this type of resource. The presence of this page aligns with similar contributions to the platform's encyclopedic scope. You delete this, just delete them all!

LuciusRex5 (talk) LuciusRex5 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello all. I would welcome feedback on the current version of the article. I know there were some initial questions about the scope. I took it upon myself to add more links to articles of executives of companies that manage health insurance. Basically, any person who has ever been a c-suite executive or in an executive senior management position (presidents, chairmen). There are probably some missing, and certainly other notable people who do not yet have an article. In my opinion, this is an acceptable length for a list article with room for expansion. Mbdfar (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand and improve citation per RWall514 Snokalok (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: This list is not inherently inappropriate, and could be improved, but the timing of its creation is certainly suspect and it is likely to be a vandalism magnet in the near future if kept. As such I think it should be workshopped in draftspace until it meets a higher standard. It can be moved back into mainspace later, provided that it has been sufficiently improved and there is consensus among editors to do so. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Timing is irrelevant. If there was a cabbage story in the news and someone was prompted by that very story to write a page about cabbage (assuming it did not exist, of course), nobody would care about the timing. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 22:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coming in late to this discussion, but I don't see how this meets WP:NLIST since no one has supplied sources that provide WP:SIGCOV of all of these individuals as a discrete topic. Next, it fails WP:NOT by being a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information with no clear boundaries. "Health insurance executives" can include dozens of individuals at each company. And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of companies in the health insurance area when you factor in subsidiaries, reinsurers, health insurance service companies, insurtech, and more. The standards of inclusion are unclear and no one has supplied sources that narrow them down reasonably and in a way that does not constitute WP:OR. Moreover, this is a violation of WP:CROSSCAT by arbitrarily slicing the list as "executives" versus other employee types and to the United States. Finally, and this is an WP:IAR rationale, in the context of the online discourse following the murder of Brian Thompson, this list is basically going to be viewed by people (although heaven forbid not used by anyone) as a hit list, and that's certainly what Wikipedia is NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Added comment: I see Mbdfar above has identified the scope of the article to executives of companies that manage health insurance. Basically, any person who has ever been a c-suite executive or in an executive senior management position (presidents, chairmen). Given the range of executive titles encompassed and the unlimited time period, we could have any number of chief financial officers, chief risk officers, chief marketing officers, chief technology officers, chief investment officers, chief administrative officers, chief legal officers, chief operating officers, and so forth. The scope is truly indiscriminate, and this article seems like a WP:COATRACK to build a database of people in these roles, which again Wikipedia is WP:NOT. (Not to mention this list is going to require immense levels of maintenance to be kept up to date as people switch between different jobs.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 03:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Peace in Africa

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

Promotional article paraphrasing the website for an organization which is not notable. 🄻🄰 03:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fiordland Trails Trust

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

WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. There are multiple articles published in The Southland Times that describe the activities of the Fiordland Trails Trust over the past decade. I have listed a group of citations from The Southland Times on the article talk page Talk:Fiordland Trails Trust. I think the article warrants expansion rather than deletion._Marshelec (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had second thoughts _Marshelec (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Marshelec lists some additional sources, but I don't think repeated mentions in the same regional paper constitute significant coverage. The only other mention I can find is here [3]https://www.odt.co.nz/southland/bit-more-help-needed-popular-fiordland-trail , and that's not really significant coverage either, and might be a re-publication of one of the Southland Times articles; I just don't think there's enough there for a whole article. I think the current content could be turned into a couple of extra sentences on the Manapouri and/or Te Anau articles at best. JeffUK 11:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Replace with alternative article The content in the existing article is unsourced and I cannot find adequate sources to back it up. On reflection I have realised that it would be more useful for readers of the encyclopedia to have an article about the trails than the organisation that has planned and created them. So I have created a new article. See: Lake2Lake Trail There is more work to do, but this is a start._Marshelec (talk)
Redirect to Lake2Lake Trail. Well done, Marshelec. Nurg (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus Capital Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRIT sources to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Anne Glover (businesswoman) fpr the founder. Chipka (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED. This is about the firm not the founder. Imcdc Contact 04:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vision of God Records

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

WP:NCORP failure. Signs of public relations editing also noted in edit history. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources. I managed to find this interview with Heaven's Metal, but the write-up is a small paragraph only and the rest is statements by the label owner in response to interview questions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wicht Club

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

All of the 3 listed sources in this article are no longer working. I was not able to find anything online about Wicht Club, its definitely not notable organisation. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is one listed source with a link that no longer works, but the other two are not linked so it isn't clear how they can be "no longer working." I do find references to the club in various books: Walter B Cannon (source 2), The Psychiatric Persuasion, and mentions in this, this. Also, Harvard has digitized an archive of the Wicht club from 1904-1911, and I added that link to the article. Lamona (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Referenced, evidently early-career support for scientists at Harvard in first decade of 20th century. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: does present a valid Reference of its existence, if too short of an article either label as a stub, or merge to the article Harvard College social clubs perhaps? As this seems to be within its relevance. And its actual existence is part of the university's history. Villkomoses (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strength Sports Australia

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

Doesn't seem to be any good third party sourcing for this - and it 's also a COI edit mess Golikom (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been written from a bias point of view. I have tried to correct it by

1. Attempting to remove information that is not proven (eg: the statement that said that the structure of the board is unclear, and the qualification process is unclear).

2. Reworded statements made from the APU (eg the statement about us leaving the ipf)

3. Included details about what SSA has recently done, including Kettlebell events.

4. Made a statement regarding its stance on drugs.

5. Remove irrelevant information about the position of World Drug Free Powerlifting Federation and being Signatory (it is irrelevant).

6. Noted that we were the 3rd nation that has left the IPF in recent years. USAPL and Powerlifting Australia being the other 2.

7. Added Strength Sports Australia's first competitions (it is now SSA, so very relevant)

8. Our international competitions are now with WDFPF, as it is now an SSA page, IPF is not our international body.

9. Only include world records if they are held while under APU or SSA.

Those changes are reasonable, and no biased.

As this page is not going to be managed without releasing the issues among the sport as a whole, yes it should be closed. Gorani!007 (talk) 09:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources that are present in the article do not establish notability. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, and WP:NORG. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golikom has removed parts due to not being sourced. However, this is not consistent with what I have seen on other pages. For example, Please go to Australian Powerlifting Alliance. Remove the links that are applied on Australian Powerlifting Alliance to their company webpage. They referenced from a non-3rd party on reference 4, 5, 6, 7 and 14.

The NRL (National Rugby League) page has references to its own webpage for news.

Golikom has advised that he has no conflict of interest and no relationship with any other Powerlifting organisation. In pursuit of fairness, I ask that Golikom address the Australian Powerlifting Alliance and NRL page with the same assertiveness as he did with our page. Gorani!007 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This article was previously nominated and reached no consensus. There has been no significant improvements to the article since. While there are indeed sources, coverage appears to be routine/centered on company launch and are not independent of subject (include contributions from company founders). Analysis by @HighKing: shows the sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Websites, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and I fail to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Seems unlikely this article will grow from a stub or get more sources in the future. Beachweak (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a date for when this company folded, but based on blog posts and other social media it seems to have become defunct within a few years. I can't find much beyond the announcements of its beginning - nothing about what impact it might have had while it existed. This is enough for me to consider it a "flash in the pan" and not notable. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Existing sources are sufficient. HuffPost is a reliable source for non-political content per WP: RS, and the Crikey article is written by Bethanie Blanchard, a person who's spent a large portion of their career in the media industry and has extensive freelance writing experience. (cite). Both of these articles give in-depth coverage (i.e. more than a brief mention) and do not primarily consist of content written by company employees or executives. WP: ORGCRIT requires that sources provide "an overview, description, ... or evaluation of the product." I do not have a sufficient explanation for why these two sources do not meet that bar, even after reading and rereading the confusing explanations of the previous AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Publishers Weekly and Huffington Post references in the article each provide the needed WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the WP:NCORP, IMO. Let'srun (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To reiterate what @HighKing: has stated regarding the huffington post article. The first couple of paragraphs generically describe "the problem" so not really about the subject. The third paragraph is a company description that looks like a boilerplate description. See 1 which even has a comparison to Rotten Tomatoes. And then there are quotes by the co-founders. So what remains doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. - Imcdc Contact 04:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Discussion appears to center on whether the HuffPost and the Publishers Weekly articles meet the criteria, so lets take a look at these.

This Publishers Weekly article from April 19th 2013 is about the partnership between Sony and the company. This is the blog post from the company from April 18th 2013. Here's another Blog post from GoodRead from April 17th which duplicates the information in the Publishers Weekly article. Here's another article from Books & Review, written by a "Staff Reporter" on April 20th which uses *exactly* the same text text as found in Publishers Weekly. There are lots of other similar reviews but they all share the same information in common, none are "Independent Content" which is a requirement to meet the criteria. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This Huff Post article is claimed as meeting the criteria (above) because it is "a reliable source". Being a reliable source forms only one part of the GNG/NCORP criteria to be met. The other (and more crucial) parts are than it must be in-depth *about* the *company* and that it must be independent *content*. This article is an advertorial, relying entirely on information about the site provided by the company itself and is promotional. Don't just take my word for it - this article on Tyler Shores describes the article as "an interview". Another "big red flag" is that there is no author/journalist attributed to this post. Nor was there one attributed in the original post in 2012. Based on all that, it fails WP:ORGIND.
Last article mentioned was this Crikey article is from the same date as the original Huff Post advertorial and both those articles are practically identical in content, both trying to "explain" the website, both referencing Rotten Tomatoes, both referencing "50 shades of Grey", both comparing to GoodReads, both listing all of the "big six" publishers. All indications that they're using content provided to them. But this fails on a more fundamental note. This article is a blog post (the URL is blogs.crikey.com) and blogs fail WP:RS for the most part. So fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND.

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. All the articles I can find are advertorials for the most part. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the website's front page (as shown in the HuffPost article), I think it's pretty natural to describe the website as "Rotten Tomatoes for books". Reviews are crowdsourced and the website displays the percentage of users who rated a book favorably. It's also common for startups to be described as "<existing product> for <new vertical>". The HuffPost article says that they interviewed an executive, but that is only a short portion of the article. I'm not convinced that these are advertorials, and I don't think I will be unless you somehow obtain conclusive proof that money changed hands as a result of the article being published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rippon, Rachel (2015). "Watching the Watchmen: The integrity of reviews in digital self-publishing" (PDF). Minding The Gap: Writing Across Thresholds And Fault Lines Papers – The Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing. Wellington: Australasian Association of Writing Programs. ISBN 978-0-9807573-8-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The review notes: "Finally, iDreambooks is a database that integrates self-published books alongside traditionally published ones and has both critic reviews and user reviews displayed on a book’s page. ... For the author, however, while iDreambooks is an excellent resource for readers, it does little to help authors garner reviews. Nevertheless, books who do manage to receive critic reviews – particularly from reputable review sites such as Kirkus or Publishers Weekly – are far more visible on the site than books with low or no critic reviews. In this regard, therefore, iDreambooks maintains ‘quality control’ by allowing books with a higher degree of critic analysis to become more visible."
2. Quill, Greg (2012-07-16). "idreambooks.com a cool tool for readers in need of credible reviews". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "A couple of young Canadian web specialists have come up with a useful tool that will help you select good books to read, using the curated reviews of mainstream literary critics. Taking their cues from Rotten Tomatoes, the popular website that aggregates the work of professional movie reviewers around the world, Sarnia native Rahul Simha and his tech-savvy buddies, Canadian Vish Chapala and American Mohit Aggarwal, have built a website, idreambooks.com, that collects, aggregates and links the published works of professional book reviewers. ... Using automated software programs and manual techniques, the three founders have managed to encapsulate and link to reviews of more than 1,000 books from publications, movie websites and blogs all over the world, including Canada’s major newspapers and magazines, the Star among them. They have aggregated the opinions into “must read” and “don’t read” categories, signalled by smiling blue cloud and frowning grey cloud symbols beneath the book cover illustrations, along with the percentage of favourable reviews."
3. Kannan, Indira (2013-06-20). "iDreamBooks: Reading between the lines: The Silicon Valley start-up spotted an opportunity in aggregating book reviews, but accurate sentiment analysis remains a challenge". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2014-04-26. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "Last year, the three friends started iDreamBooks. The website, www.idreambooks.com, aggregates book reviews from major publications such as The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a number of other media platforms around the world, and assigns ratings to books based on the reviews. The service is modelled on www.rottentomatoes.com, a well known website that provides a similar service to moviegoers, aggregating film reviews. ... The project started with a couple of thousand titles; now, it covers about 100,000 titles. While critics' reviews are displayed for most books, ratings are available only for about 2,000. A search for Dan Brown's long-awaited thriller Inferno, for instance, reveals only one review and no critic rating, though it was widely reviewed and one of the biggest publications this year."
4. Kalder, Daniel (2012-07-13). "iDreambooks Promises "Rotten Tomatoes-like" Site for Books". Publishing Perspectives. Frankfurter Buchmesse. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreambooks has developed rapidly. Simha has been “playing around with the idea” since February, and developing it seriously since the end of March. There are three founders and four contractors on staff; Simha and one of his co-founders are engineers by training, but know how to write code. Currently they are adding new content to the site every day to make it as comprehensive as possible. Of course, others have announced similar intentions over the years, including Kirkus Reviews, which abandoned the project."
5. Grant, Rebecca (2012-07-13). "idreambooks offers credible recommendations for book lovers". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "idreambooks.com launched this week in an effort to help people read less rubbish. The site aggregates literary reviews from publications like the NYTimes and Washington Post and recommends books that were given a positive rating by 70% of critics. Plenty of book review sites out there collect user reviews and base recommendations off that criteria. idreambooks sticks solely to the professionals, so only books with critical endorsement are promoted."
6. "iDreamBooks Review Site: Rotten Tomatoes For Books?". HuffPost. 2012-07-13. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreamBooks, a site openly inspired by Rotten Tomatoes, has created a system that aims to aggregate and streamline book reviews, giving new releases from the big six publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, and Simon & Schuster) a percentage rating. Like its popular film equivalent, the iDreamBooks team decides whether a certain review is positive or negative using both automated and manual techniques, and compiles the ratings to determine a book's critical merit."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iDreamBooks 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) 09:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not one of these contains in-depth independent content about the company, just stuff regurgitated from the website and from PR packs. A couple of sentences does not meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Also most of those articles rely entirely on interviews from the founders or information provided by the company, which is obvious if you read the article rather than the individual sentences isolated above. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in the quotes I've provided, the sources contain sufficient independent reporting and analysis to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, seems in depth and from a variety of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, which ones appear to contain in-depth "Independent Content" to you? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minding the Gap is good, containing a decent amount of critical analysis of the platform from a scholarly work. The Business Standard piece is also fine on that front. The other 2012 era ones are IMO all functionally one source since they came out at the same time, but in combination they have some useful pieces. Together that's enough for me. And I do not think your assessment of relying wholly on interviews or "just regurgitated from the website" is accurate.

Your bar for company notability is very high, higher than already the high NCORP. Quite frankly you say this a lot, I don't think I've ever seen you vote keep on a company at AfD. And that's fine, you're very often right, but I do not necessarily agree with your assessment of the pieces in this case or every case.

Also, WP:NWEB is a more appropriate guideline for this article IMO than NCORP, as website, under which this would also pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not really related to the this current afd but one of my articles Cowin Capital was nominated for deletion by a now blocked account before. The decision was to keep it. One of the main reasons was because Cunard provided more sources just like now BUT HighKing actually agreed with him and voted keep. It does show both of them can agree to keep an article even if it probably is not common. Imcdc Contact 01:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The reference "Minding the Gap" is a paper submitted by a student for an unknown course. We don't know the context, but it is not a reliable source. You say it is "scholarly" - it has not been cited anywhere. The Business Standard piece relies entirely on information provided by the website (hence the references in the first few paragraphs to Rotten Tomatoes) and to an interview with the founders, Simha, as noted at the beginning of paragraph 3 and as is obvious by the number of direct quotes in the article. That said, your point about NWEB is valid if the article was to focus on that aspect and not on the company/founders/etc. Finally, my "bar" for notability is precisely what is contained in NCORP, nothing more or less. Others might go on their own opinion or what the like or dislike, but if you want to stick to arguing guidelines and you can point to any paragraphs in any article which contain in-depth "Independent Content" (as defined in our guidelines) then I'll happily change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rippon 2015 is a paper that was part of the "Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing Programs". This about page notes, "The Australasian Association of Writing Programs was established in 1996, with its first conference, a gathering of teachers and students of creative and professional writing, held at the University of Technology, Sydney and organised by Graham Williams and Dr Jan Hutchinson." I consider this source to be sufficiently reliable to contribute to notability. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: iDreamBooks's lead says, "iDreamBooks.com was a book "discoverability" website, structured as a book review aggregator." iDreamBooks is a website. PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) made a good point above that iDreamBooks passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP.Insufficient WP:ORGCRIT sources.

Edit: @WikiOriginal-9:, you withdrew the nomination last time. Do you have any comments on whether or not this article should be deleted?

Imcdc Contact 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Germany. Imcdc Contact 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Fashion, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Leisure Limited

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

It's not clear to me why this page exists or how or why it could ever be bought up to WP's standards.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values	It's the organisation's mission statement	It's the company's own marketing material	Lacks the objective overview required to meet the definition of significant	✘ No
https://www.better.org.uk/our-values	It's the company's website again	It's too close to the subject	Just a list. No prose.	✘ No
https://switchtheplay.com/news/switch-the-play-and-gll-national-news-release/	It says it's a press release	Press releases are put out by the organisation and are not subject to editorial oversight.	Lacks the critical insights and objectivity required for significant coverage.	✘ No
https://www.sportspro.com/insights/analysis/london-2012-olympics-venues-today-london-stadium-velodrome-aquatics-centre/	Appears to be published by a partner organisation	No discusson of the source's reliablity on RS	Article is about former Olympic venues, not Greenwich Leisure Limited	✘ No
http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1097435/	Press release aggregation site.	Little to no editorial oversight.	Appears to discus the company's rebrand but not the actual company or its history.	✘ No
https://www.andrewbibby.com/socialenterprise/greenwich-leisure.html	Bibbly is a journalist for hire	Published to journalist website without editorial oversight.	~ Some depth of coverage but it's akin to a press release and clearly primary	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully object to this page being placed suggested for deletion. GLL is notable as one of the UK's larger social enterprises and also runs some of the venues that were used in the 2012 London Olympics, such as the London Aquatics Centre (which has its own Wikipedia page) and is also mentioned on the Zaha Hadid Wikipedia page. There are also quite a number of Olympic and Paralympic medal winners that were supported by GLL's Sport Foundation. I'd like to try and find some independent, impartial secondary sources so the GLL Wikipedia page could meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Could we take it off the list for the time being so I can suggest some changes and then reassess please? Leemann72 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The applicable guideline is WP:NONPROFIT, and it is also noted there is no indication of a WP:BEFORE search done by the nominator. A quick search on ProQuest indicates circa 419 hits for "Greenwich Leisure Limited". Further in-depth analysis would be needed to build an article, but there does seem to be coverage out there including this, in a long standing journal and written by the journal editor. The Guardian newspaper confirms that GLL is the biggest trust in the UK running sports facilities. All told - enough evidence to presume notability under NONPROFIT in my view - even if the article needs lots of work. ResonantDis_tortion 16:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have edited further and added more references to hopefully help improve the article. Leemann72 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel it meets Notability Requirements, but it is time to protect the page so only confirmed editors are able to edit the actual article and nonconfirmed editors and paid editors can only make edit requests on the talk page.--VViking_TalkEdits 15:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with the Guardian sources it probably meets WP:GNG.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 19:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This and the mentioned Guardian article likely take us to reasonable notability. MWFwiki (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a recommendation to WP:SNOW.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 17:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pump Aid

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

An article based on 2 sources. There's 9 google news hits but on closer inspection most of these are not WP:SIGCOV that would meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several citations with non-trivial coverage referenced within the article, including press and academic journals. This WP:NONPROFIT has provided water to c. 1.2 million people. I see no issues with the subject meeting WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bandidos MC support clubs

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

Only a few of these have their own articles, and the rest of them are cited mainly to their own webpages. As Wikipedia is not a directory, I recommend this article be deleted due to the list not having a claim to notability. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 1 December 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} 23:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Professional Landmen

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

Purely promotional article with only primary sources; the current version of the article is already a cut-down version of even more promotional material seen here: Special:Diff/755821962. Could find no secondary sources on Google LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Landman (oil worker) - These two are essentially saying the same thing about the subject matter. We don't need two articles on the subject. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough secondary sources to prove notability. I'm against merging. This is about an organization, not about the career itself. Rublamb (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of specific sources in light of WP:NORG would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Votorantim Novos Negócios

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies.

This was previous nominated for deletion but had no consensus. I am nominating this again as there's no justification so far to give the subsidiary its own article when article of parent Votorantim Group already exists. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Brazil. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheries Society of Bangladesh

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

Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found press releases and directory listings, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The society's work may be good and important, especially to those connected with it, but the organization is not notable (not a suitable topic for a stand alone Wikipedia article). Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Obviously the page itself needs to have sources added. What persuades me towards keep is that the organisation is quoted quite a lot as part of the CV or similar of people, e.g. membership, talks, award and Orcid entries as examples. (There are many more of these.) This indicates that it has enough stature that people mention it, albeit this is not as strong as specific articles on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics Design Inc.

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - old edit -COI hasn't been discussed on the talk page, as the COI box suggests should happen. Late edit - it has been discussed as I hadn't looked in the archives. Almost all of the refs are self referential, and as discussed in the archive the trade mag article is just a rehash of the company's PR. 21:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. No valid deletion rationale has been offered, nor has evidence of a WP:BEFORE been provided. There is no reason provided why any COI that may be present cannot be addressed editorially. The WP:WEBHOST policy primarily applies to userspace and is thus not a rationale for deletion, and WP:COIEDIT is not a reason for deletion since such edits are not prohibited (just strongly discouraged). I would encourage the nominator to renominate with a valid rationale and evidence of a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Ref. 2 is significant, independent coverage. I'm having a hard time finding more but I assume more must be out there since the company has won some innovation awards. If kept, the article needs to be radically chopped, since it's almost all sourced to press releases and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. This was a blatant advert from the first and despite a lot of toning down and cleaning, still is. Plus it lacks the sort of coverage that is good for WP:NCORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with above; this entire article, at least as an outsider, reads like an advertisement. I find it hard to believe it passes WP:ORGCRIT; even if one source contains significant independent coverage, ORGCRIT requires multiple. To me it doesn't seem like it could be significantly improved even in the future. Beachweak (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but I could also go the other way. I removed a lot of the non-independent sources and much of the "products" area. There are still two sections that are un-sourced (History and Robot manipulators). The main thing in favor of this article is the development of Bixi, which appears to be significant. However, the links here re Bixi do not mention Robotics Design. I found one newspaper article with a mention that attributes this company to Bixi, and a few other very brief mentions. Since this is a Canadian company perhaps someone has better access to Canadian sources (which you would think we would find alongside the US ones, but that doesn't seem to be the case.) The other products have some decent sources. Lamona (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otago Gold Rush (basketball)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Basketball. DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The article is alot of work but the team has ample coverage about it as one of the top women's basketball teams in New Zealand.National Womens Basketball Championships Finals Tip Off Thursday, Long build-up finally over for Gold Rush, Basketball: Otago crowned WBC champions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaldi (talk • contribs) 09:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The team played in the Women's Basketball Championship – a fairly unremarkable New Zealand domestic competition with no wiki page. Are you willing to demonstrate this team's notability by expanding the article? A general google search of "otago gold rush basketball" doesn't yield many results. That first article you linked for example is a copy and paste from Basketball New Zealand. The page is also a borderline Orphan. DaHuzyBru (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Archaeology. – Joe (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good grief: "ALGAO is the national body representing local government archaeological services on behalf of County, District, Unitary and National Park authorities. ALGAO co-ordinates the views of member authorities (110 in total) and presents them to government and to other national organisations. It also acts as an advisor to the Local Government Association on archaeological matters." Massively influential national body representing archaeology at every level of government in the UK. That's not notable? Do me a lemon! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be so, but has it translated to any usable sources? I came across this article because it's been unreferenced for thirteen years—one of the few remaining unreferenced archaeology articles left, by the way—and after some time searching I couldn't rectify that. I'm happy to be corrected but without sources we can't write an article, no matter how influential the subject. – Joe (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it may be a "massively influential national body" but where's the coverage? Google news comes up with 4 hits, 1st and 3rd being not indepth and 4th is a letter to a newspaper. There are plenty of google books hits but most seem 1 line mentions when I looked at the first few pages of results. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added sourcing to the article, one of the strongest cases of 'presumed notability' I've seen in a long while. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However, you added nine references, and: [4] has just a single sentence stating what ALGAO is; [5], [6], [7], [8] are reports and publications of ALGAO itself; [9] is a press release about a report ALGAO produced; [10] and [11] offer passing mentions in the context of a manufactured "war on woke" story; and [12] doesn't mention the subject. So we still have no significant coverage in independent sources. Notability does appear to have been presumed for the last decade, but that presumption has so far proved wrong. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Marmitons

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

No evidence of notability, although it's existed for nearly 2 decades, it's promotional in tone, and likely a copyright violation of [13]. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, article lacks notability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 06:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sink Cat Based on your rationale, I assume you meant to write "Delete" in bold, not "Support"? It is clearer when AfD !votes are for a specific outcome, rather than just supporting the nomination. The nominator could change their mind, for instance, or (like in this case) not specify the outcome they're seeking. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes I had meant delete. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sourcing that could be used.[14][15][16] etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rolling. There are additional sources as well I found off a quick Google search [17] [18] [19]. It meets WP:GNG, but the article is in desperate need of inline sourcing and copyediting. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it meets GNG, given the sources identified above. But it certainly needs a significant rewrite. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An organization that seems to have an international presence. Enough sources presented above. Found a couple more (not great ones): [20], [21]. Agree completely, this article needs a lot of work. --Alan Islas (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Eisspeedway

Organizations deletion

Proposed deletions

Categories