Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Points of interest related to Organizations on Wikipedia |
|---|
| Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup |
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.
You can help maintain the list on this page:
- To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
-
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Organizations}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Organizations and social programs.
Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.
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.
Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations/archive.| Purge page cache | Watch this page |
Contents |
[edit] Organizations deletion
[edit] Bridges to Belarus
Promotional charity article of a non-notable charity, reads like a leaflet. SGGH speak! 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Endorse nomination unless article is rewritten, referenced and notability established. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep not only does it read like a leaflet, I strongly suspect that it is a leaflet. THAT SAID, it has quite a few google hits (not that the google popularity contest means much) and I do believe it's notable. Let's either keep and clean up, or perhaps merge into List of Chernobyl-related charities (which is in serious need of help too, by the way). L'Aquatique[talk] 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Advocates for Youth
Non-notable charity SGGH speak! 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I declined the speedy because their previous name had significant coverage and while their current name is a harder search there is substantial coverage. It needs fleshing out, but it's a national non-profit organization that has significant RS coverage. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep – Please, please, please nominators do some minimum research before nominating for deletion. Just a quick search gives over 1,400 hits on Google News. That does not include the hits generated by Center for Population Options which gives another 365 hits. Not bad for an organization that was renamed over 17 years ago. As a second point, I noticed that the article was posted as a stub at 13:35 today and tagged for Speedy delete at 13:39, which was denied, retagged aging at 13:56, again denied and finally posted here at Afd at 18:03. My question: are we paying bonus on the number of articles an individual nominates for deletion, I did not hear about? ShoesssS Talk 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep per Shoessss and Travellingcari. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Tennessee Eastman Hiking and Canoeing Club
Non-notable local organization, referenced only by club's own site and other sources not meeting requirements for establishing notability. Hellno2 (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom—lack of third party sources, non-notable. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but drastically reduce the size of the article. The final article should look more like Georgia Appalachian Trail Club or Dartmouth Outing Club. As an organization that has existed for more than 60 years and is responsible for maintaining a large chunk of the Appalachian Trail, this club is inherently notable. Independent sources exist; for example, the role of the club and its member Stan Murray in relocating 65 miles of the Appalachian Trail is documented in this reference. If the massive amount of trivial detail were removed from the article, it would look like a reasonable article (not the appalling collection of self-sourced trivia that currently exists). --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Nickerson Family Association
Contested prod; non-notable family organization, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Michael WhiteT·C 12:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weakish Keep - This isn't some fly-by-night geneology club; it was founded over 100 years ago. Sure, many (most) of the hits are announcements of reunions or obituaries, but there are also real news items, such as [1] , [2], and this one, which asserts it is "one of the largest genealogical associations in the world." The article needs cleanup, and it's not clear to me that it will ever be more than a few paragraphs, but I think the subject can be established as notable. Frank | talk 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - Needs refs. from other sites to be considered for a Wikipeida article. Limetolime Talk to me • look what I did! 13:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with both the statements above. In fact, I've wanted to expand this article, but that would take things into COI territory, as I stated on the NFA's talk page. Nickersonl (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you know of neutral, verifiable sources, by all means please add them. COI is not the only factor to keep in mind; it is certainly possible to contribute to an article even if you're a member of the organization. It wouldn't be a good idea to be the ONLY contributor, and if it were your own personal biography that would be different, but if the organization is notable and you can provide links to show that, go for it! Frank | talk 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lambda Chi Rho
This local sorority has 42 Google hits, 11 Google news hits, and 4 Google Books hits. None of these do anything towards notability (one of the Google books hits is an example in a grammar textbook, many of the Google News hits are society pages or obituaries). Prod tag removed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable "fraternity" or "sorority". JIP | Talk 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ORG Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. As Rooster mentioned, none establish notability TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bands4boobs
Non notable charities operating only in Stourbridge and Coventry, England. Raised a non-notable (it terms of wikipedia) amount of money. Only referenced by self published source. SGGH speak! 13:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails the most general criteria: WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Notability is not confirmed. --Ecoleetage (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable charity event, and I'm sure they don't even show any boobs anyway. =) JIP | Talk 18:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Social Capital Foundation
no evidence of notability has been provided. The article was kept despite the lack of sources in 2006 hoping that expansion would provide sourcing and satisfiy notability requirements, however, this has not happened and the article should be looked at again and evidence of notability should be required. This article, together with Patrick Hunout and The International Scope Review appear to be a "walled garden" using each to support the other. Madagascar periwinkle (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I see no evidence of reliable secondary sources establishing notability for this foundation. Does indeed look like a walled garden... --Crusio (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Do not delete. The expression "wall garden" does not mean much. There are numerous good academic contributions on their website as mentioned in 2006. Their conferences are also well-known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
— 62.235.215.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. The William Davidson Institute is not very different and is not considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.215.231 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- ???? The William Davidson Institute does not have an article? In any case, the fact that other bad articles exist does not justify keeping similar articles. --Crusio (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The William Davidson Institute does have an article, but it comprises no references, and is not considered for deletion, so why lack so much objectivity Crusio? This TSCF article gives complete info to public about a serious organization. See no problem with it.
- You're right, The William Davidson Institute does have a page (I searched for "William Davidson Institute", and then one gets redirected to the UMich article; it owuld be handy if you could clearly indicate such links in your comments). I'll have a look at it later, no time now, although at first sight I indeed do not see much reason why it should have a separate article. However, please WP:AGF. I am not biased against TSCF. That does not mean, however, that it is my task to find all similar articles and propose those for deletion, too (there must be thousands of those....) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an established policy for this kind of cases. --Crusio (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless sufficient reliable published third-party sources are provided to establish notability. As it is, this is close to an A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Crusio and David Eppstein. Does not pass WP:N for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Info Hi folks, this is TSCF. You do what you want with your articles but please take into consideration the following. As a still young Foundation, we are working to increase coverage. However, we already have several hundred international members, our conferences are appreciated as we have each time 100-150 participants from all over the world, and we have 26.000 unique visitors a year to our website. We release a line of publications for almost 10 years, and we have published some 150 international contributors, some of them famous for cross-cultural comparisons, like Geert Hofstede. We use a scientific evaluation methodology that is one of the most sophisticated currently (Crusio, not the case of CNRS!). We have had on the Board illustrious people like Pierre Bourdieu. In 2007, we rejected most of the articles on fiscal policy that had been submitted, because they included already published elements, and we want to deliver to the public original quality materials. In 2008, we should resume retrospectively our publications with original materials on active ageing. So we think that all this shows a growing reputation and recognition, and that this Wikipedia article gives to your public synthetic information they have the right to have. Now, the decision is yours! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSCF (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's an established fact that there is a growing interest in the activities of The Social Capital Foundation and its ideals particularly among academics. I think that the arguments presented by some for its deletion are subjective and too biased to be taken seriously. TSCF is a scientifically sound institution with a serious agenda that aims to promote peoples' lives in their communities through their main asset: Social Capital. TSCF confernce themes (see the latest theme of the upcoming conference in Malta in Sept. 2008)and the published articles in the International Scope Review testify to what I am saying. Do not delete this article.Tiziouzou15 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
