Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund


 * 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 delete. bd2412 T 23:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails notability guidelines at WP:GROUP. I have no connection to the subject, I stumbled across it when a newly created account was adding a non-notable to the list of people who were first on the board of this now defunct group. I removed that, and then the listing of all the other board members who were non-notable. I tried finding some sources regarding the group but came up short, realizing the entire group was non-notable and unlikely to gain any as it no longer exists. Prod was contested. Ifnord (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Author Comment. What does prod mean? Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please see WP:PROD. It is the informal process to delete an article, the tag you removed and hence the formal process now. Ifnord (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't find anything on en-news RS.  The two non-en news sources gave it passing reference in the CVs of individuals (e.g. here).  It does appear in a book search, but again only in passing reference or in books where it is listed as per a directory of sources of investors.  These are all supporting its existance.  However, I could find nothing supporting its notability; not a single material RS discussing the fund or its impact that would meet WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. What does "en-news RS" and "RS" mean? Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. RS is from WP:RS, and "en-news" are RS news sources where English is the language. I can see that there are some foreign sources oon this but the ones I checked were just name-checking the Fund and not discussing/profiling it (e.g. goes to prove existance but not notability). However, this fund may appear with different names in Russian/Asian media and thus a good RS that does profile the fund could exist in a major paper in these areas? Britishfinance (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~   {talk}  09:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Not able to find any significant coverage of the fund itself. In my searches I found passing mentions like, which is certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2019 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 * Why was this page deleted if 2 people nominated it for deletion, and one (myself) argued against it? How is that possibly consensus in any possible scenario? This process initiated by people that obviously are educated in their domains but not in history or politics or any aspect of historical reflection, has its parallels adn is reminiscent of the top-down structures of communist political decisions, and gangsterism.Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This article should certainly not, according to Wikipedia's written rules, have been deleted for notability issues, because if you read the notability topic in Wikipedia, it is based on the subject-matter, not the specificity of the article in question. I could extract quotes from the Wikipedia article on Notability, as I thought I still had time to do so, however, this article is gone. If it was so difficult to find information on this specific topic, why is there a page on the Whitehouse website currently, that specifically refers to the name of this specific fund? Why is there a vacuum on Wikipedia of topics on this subject matter? This is just another example on Wikipedia, who either are not sophisticated enough to do an effective web search or are too lazy to do one, because it may take too much time. Please explain what consensus means on Wikipedia. Does it really mean majority-rule, or does it actually mean consensus?... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)