Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International HIV Fund (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

International HIV Fund
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The previous AfD didn't receive any comments, perhaps because it was not set up properly. I'm repeating it on behalf of the previous nominator,, who wrote: "Doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it was notable. No external references of any consequence". This is a procedural renomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  07:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I couldn't find any independent coverage of this organisation. They have been removed from the charities register, without any information having been submitted to describe their activity prior to this . There are no reliable sources in the article, so doesn't pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources, notability not established.--Staberinde (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Available sources do not establish notability per WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as not yet convincing for the necessary better improvements, the article is not currently convincing to actually keep. SwisterTwister   talk  22:27, 22 April 2016 (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.