Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a transcluded list of VfD debates involving articles about organizations.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 07:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Association For Consicousness Exploration (ACE)

Advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


Delete nn advertising. Eclipsed 03:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising, non-encyclopedic topic. DavidH 04:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment"Association For Consciousness Exploration" with the c befoe the i gets 792 google hits, may be slighly notable. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, following the Google hits, it seems to just be a local organization in Ohio and a club in nearby Ohio-based Wright State University. Either way, it's advertising. -D. Wu 00:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – malathion talk 07:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] V4CE

Not notable organization - google 5 hits, delete also the redirect Visions for Central Europe.- feydey 00:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --malathion talk 05:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UMHC

Delete. Just a hiking club at a Uni. -Splash 00:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Contains useful, cross-referenced information. Other far less informative hiking club pages exsist!. --Coops
    • Note: User's fifth edit. -R. fiend 13:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit first person reportage. I'd do it, but I'm far to out of shape...puff....wheeze... Hamster Sandwich 01:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: "The club has a long history (which we'll get up here soon!)". It currently reads like an advert. Even if it was NPOV it would be of little interest to anyone outside the university. Why can't they put this on their website? Flowerparty talk 02:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for now - unless... if there is any significantly-notable information added onto this article soon about the club and/or its history. UniReb 07:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe mention in the University's article, but it's not even anything I would call worth a merge (or even a smerge). Every university or college has dozens or more clubs, some of them aren't even around for more than a few years. College clubs are rarely notable. -R. fiend 13:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Tobycat 20:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair | Talk 08:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arello

Ad for non-notable organization, from the same user who created Dixie Randock, Real Estate Education Association and A Institute. --cesarb 01:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - This isn't the yellow pages... please direct yourself to the nearest phone company. Thank you and good morning/afternoon/evening/& night. :) UniReb 07:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Completely non-notable. Amcfreely 13:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Hujjat 09:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 14:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mudagh machmar

This looks to be a nonnotable student club vanity article. All the "legendary persons" mentioned in the article are all currently students at the University of Amsterdam. Babajobu 22:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - as mentioned, completely NN - 2 hits on Google, pisses me off when people don't even try to sound encyclopaedic and use terms like "legendary" to describe themselves Sherurcij 05:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn - search for Mudagh on university's own website gets 1 hit. [1] Punkmorten 18:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 12:51, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NILU

  • Our staff? We have specialized? Sounds like advertising to me. The extra hy-phens indicate a cut-and-paste job, so it might even be a copyvio. Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 11:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep : National level research lab. Needs cleanup though. Manik Raina 14:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but hideously written. I can't find the copyvio I feel it must be on their website, however (though some sentences are copy-pastes, others are not). -Splash 23:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. As a national reseach institution it is notable but needs wikifying and cleanup of POV. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs major help. --Etacar11 01:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepMay still need some wikifying, though I have given it a hand, also I think I can make a Norwegian version of it. --Finn Bjørklid 8 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St.joris

Doesn't make much sense to me. --R.Koot 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --R.Koot 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I could be wrong but I think this is a (Dutch?) Belguim town history, possibly for Sint-Joris. If so, merge it. Either way, it needs one hell of a clean-up if it is no be kept --Doc (?) 23:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No it's about a carnavalsvereniging (Dutch: roughly translates to Jester/Party Society) --R.Koot 23:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • O.K. (with a foolish grin), I defer - delete --Doc (?) 00:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's basically a marksmanship club with ceremonial overtones. There might be a case for an article about the whole Schutterij scene. Tearlach 12:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 11:41, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups widely considered extremist

there's no way this could ever be NPOV, and the article certaintly starts that way, with its one member being PETA Sdedeo 23:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Extreme delete because the implication will be 'considered extreme by Western liberals ...' --Doc (?) 23:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as irredeemably POV (although PETA is widely described by media as extremist, but others no doubt beg to differ). 23skidoo 23:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as subjective and POV. Does this qualify for a speedy? Kaibabsquirrel 15:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: We are here to report on the world, and one of the truths about the world is that there are groups that are frequently considered extremist. Recently there has been a pernicious notion that since Wikipedia is not supposed to endorse one POV over another, that Wikipedia should not acknowledge the existence of controversial POVs. In short, I find the nominating statement of "there's no way this could ever be NPOV" to be entirely at odds with the very notion of NPOV, and the only reason I am not supporting the keeping of the current article is because it is currently just one item long and its subject, that of all extremist groups, too broad. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The problem is that groups considered "extreamist" today may not be in 10 years, so at the very least its quite time-based --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - cannot be anything but POV. Definition of extremism is totally based on someone's POV from "extremist liberals" to "extremist conservatists" to "extreme environmentalists". At the very least, the list would have to include very copious notes who consider the group extremist, making it bona fide edit war bait. I think we can write about various groups "considered extremist" by defining what they do (ie. sort of "show, don't tell"). - Skysmith 08:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: You're completely right that an acceptable article on this topic would need copious notes to verify that the groups are "widely" considered extremist. But there seems to be a common confusion these days between "the subject of the article is a POV, or multiple POVs" and "the article is inherently POV" -- two entirely different things. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --Allen3 talk 12:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CalWIN

"a state-mandated computerized information system to automate eligibility determination and some case maintenance functions for specific county-administered social services programs in California, including CalWORKs, Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, CAPI, General Assistance, and Foster Care."
I don't really think that's very significant. EvilPhoenix talk 03:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, there are hundreths and thousands of applications and Wiki has no chance to maintain them. Pavel Vozenilek 19:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a system that affects the lives of millions. Needs expansion if anything. Hamster Sandwich 20:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many articles on here that have been allowed for less. I'm with Hamster, this is a significant, although somewhat overlooked, system that many might find interest in reading about.--Frag 15:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable welfare/ Klonimus 05:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. arj 22:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 12:48, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Interfaith Youth Leadership Program

Non-notable high school extra-curricular program in a Massachusetts town of 17,000. Tempshill 05:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. One delete vote discarded for lack of edit history, but including it would not have altered the outcome. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ahbash (Lebanon)

This page has been on Pages in need for translation for more than 2 weeks without it getting translated, therefore it goes to vfd. Delete <drini ☎> 15:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete EN.wikipedia.org Explodicle 16:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dtto. I am not sure whether a policy has been established for such situations. Pavel Vozenilek 19:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep', just take out the non-English parts. Kappa 23:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, ditto. Unless it's copyvio... Scroll down to see the English content. It looks as if someone pasted the same paragraph in several different languages. -- Visviva 02:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 23:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porn 'n Chicken

The article itself seems unsure if the events it mentions actually happened. Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me, unencyclopedic even if true. At the very least, it needs major clean-up if it wants to be taken seriously. Garrett Albright 12:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. A real movie of this name is found on the IMDB and the story has been covered by the New York Times (among the first Google results). Even if parts of this story is a hoax, it is notable enough. Uppland 18:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, partially original research, and completely confused. -Soltak 18:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. If I've heard of it, it must be notable. It was in TIME magazine for goodness sake. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup as above. Enough media coverage to warrant notability. 23skidoo 18:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article as it stands is well-referenced. Capitalistroadster 19:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've seen this movie. Redwolf24 20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I cleaned up this article a lot. How's it look? Redwolf24 04:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wrote the original, controversial entry. Actually, I wrote it originally for everything2, which may be why the tone was not appropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks to those who helped clean it up; I have tried to make it more encyclopedic myself as well. As for those who question the accuracy of the entry — it is as accurate as I can make it with the sources available. As noted above, I have provided copious citations. Uucp 13:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nice job on the cleanup Jehochman 17:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (Y'90)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus) but move to the correct capitalisation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Santa fe street outreach resource center

obvious non-notability Robinh 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and move to a correctly capitalised title. Notability is not established as a relevant criterion for this kind of article. arj 21:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uganda Crafts 2000 Limited

Reads like an adverisment. AlbertR 18:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete That's because it is an advertisement! Only 3 Google hits [2], one of which is to List of Ugandan companies, where the only other blue link is for Barclays Bank. Sonic Mew | talk to me 18:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Deletion_sorting_Organizations_f2df.html"