Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently I started this article ten years ago in an attempt to assist an editor who had created it in the wrong place. I perhaps shouldn't have bothered, because it fails WP:ORG. Pontificalibus 12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed, no WP:SIGCOV. We all make/made mistakes, particularly back when WP policy was less well defined and we were all less familiar with it. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: There has been some critical coverage around the organisation's closure: in Le Temps on 5 December, in 24heures (paywalled), and in a Forbes article on January 3. AllyD (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to the sources found by AllyD, I found a few passing mentions, but not enough to meet WP:NORG.  The article itself is badly written from a WP:MOS point of view, and sourced only to the org's own website.  If this were an org that came close to meeting WP:NORG, it might be worth keeping and putting in the effort to fix the structural problems with the article, but it's not, so it's not.  I'd have no objection to somebody writing a new article on this topic if they could find better sources (or even adopting this one in draft/user space to work on), but it's not worth keeping in its current state.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 17 January 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.