Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Police Organization


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. The discussion has run out of steam, and despite analysis of the sources, few editors have commented on them. Therefore, I don't see agreement of what to do, and the debate has been resisted too many times. No prejudice against renomination at a later date. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

International Police Organization

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication of being notable with terrible references. Draftified but not updated. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  07:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police,  and Italy.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The organization is “notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.” Between 2021 and 2023, this subject has been the subject of:
 * Comment: I started this page and wrote it.

— Slovenian Press Agency STA, the state-owned and highly reputable press agency, in at least three articles

— BalkanInsight (Serbia etc), a well-known international media in English with award-winning journalists from 7 countries

— Dnevnik, a major daily newspaper, established 1946, in at least three articles, two of which focus on the subject in-depth

— Slovenia Times, the leading Slovenian publication in English

— Večer, a major daily newspaper, established 1945, in a two-page feature article with in-depth coverage of the organization

These sources are referenced in the page. Topjur01 (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: And here are some more sources from the leading national media, 2021-2023:

-- National TV Slovenia, state owned: TV news 1: https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/permisivna-vzgoja-je-vpeljana-v-vse-pore-nasega-zivljenja/665602 TV news 2: https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/kdo-stoji-za-mednarodno-policijsko-organizacijo-ipo-ki-je-pri-nas-pomagala-po-poplavah/679297

-- Delo, the most read national daily newspaper since 1945: Article 1: https://www.delo.si/tag/pomoc-za-prizadete/ Article 2: https://www.delo.si/nedelo/odziv-ljudi-je-fantasticen/

-- 24ur, the most read news portal in the country: Article 1: https://www.24ur.com/novice/slovenija/pomoc-rdeci-kriz.html

-- BIRN (Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, Serbia etc): https://birn.rs/mreza-parapolicijskih-organizacija-pravoslavni-templari-i-veze-sa-sns-om/

Topjur01 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The National TV Radio_and_Television_of_Montenegro occasionally hosta guests who represent the organization, see for example (this TV show is on Youtube but it is from the national tv: https:// (youtube) /mPxMhKQiLHk?si=3uvAEw4nQur5TvuJ&t=852 A major news website published a news item about the organization and its event: https://primorski.me/info/odrzano-predavanje-uloga-i-znacaj-mladih-u-kreiranju-bezbjednijeg-drustva/
 * Comment: In the previous two comments, I listed 10 reliable media sources from Slovenia and 2 based in Serbia, and here are two in Montenegro:

For other countries, news items are in its language and hard to detect, but I guess 10+ sources from three countries should suffice. Topjur01 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: We need to hear from other editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: It seems that nobody has expressed their opinion to keep or delete. I am randomly pinging several editors whom I do not know and who have previously voted on other organizations' AfDs and kindly ask you to help reach a consensus, either to delete or keep. User:A._B., User:Chocmilk03 , User:Gadfium , User:Bookworm857158367 , User:Superb_Owl (I hope you do not mind and I hope I am doing this correctly). Thank you. Topjur01 (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is well outside my areas of interest or knowledge, so I decline to offer an opinion.- gadfium 02:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also outside of my interest area and knowledge - did a cursory search but had trouble finding English-language sources on the topic Superb Owl (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I can't help on this.-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears notable and well referenced. There is no good reason to delete this particular article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi How goes it? Notable in what way exactly? If you could give me a definition of why its notable I might withdrawn. I think there references are particularly poor. I've not seen a single one that tells me there is a level of significance that makes it notable. We will go through the references, but at the moment its more a listing than an article.    scope_creep Talk  06:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is a well known and highly notable organization in Serbia, Slovenia, Montenegro and some other countries. The fact that it is not notable in English speaking countries or that it is not referenced in English sources is irrelevant. Danp2006 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This editor is a WP:SPA and probably has a WP:COI since this is the only article they have worked on.   scope_creep Talk  23:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Comment This is a new private company that is no more notable than any other private company. To say it is highly notable when its only been in existance for 5 years is disengenous and lacks credibility, particularly as its is small private company. I will go through the references shortly.   scope_creep Talk  23:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. From what I could gather, sources seem to be mainly press releases, editorials, primary sources, or passing mentions. Wozal (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but these are 10+ articles in countries' leading media, none of them is a press release or a passing mention. At least 5 articles in 5 different media are a detailed examination of the organization. Some are critical (in daily Dnevnik or BalkanInsight) and others are favoulable (in daily Večer). In addition to 10+ detailed articles in credible media there may be some press releases, editorials, primary sources or passing mentions, but these additional documents do not make the organization non-notable. My guess is you did not read the articles. TTopjur01 (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Keep  . It clearly passes notability in at least some countries. RTVSLO, Dnevnik, Delo, Večer, BalkanInsight are all credible media in South Eastern Europe. Tiberius1978 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I'll examine the first two reference blocks tommorrow. Saying is credible doesn't cut it.   scope_creep Talk  22:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Lets examine the references then since late. I'll do the first block since its 20 references:
 * Ref 1 This is a company registration website similar to companies house in the Uk. Its non-rs.  Fails WP:SIRS
 * Ref 2 Lists the organisation but is passing. Proves it exists. That fails WP:SIRS
 * Ref 3 States its a non-profit.
 * Ref 4 404 Fails WP:SIRS
 * Ref 5 News report of a member receiving a certificate from the company. Its WP:PRIMARY andf fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 6 Non-rs
 * Ref 7 This is press-release. An appointment. Fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 8 A report on the IPO attending a conference, one of their own member. It fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 9 Another appointment. Trivial coverage.  It fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 10 Change of leadership. Trivial coverage.  It fails WP:ORGIND.
 * Ref 11 Company blog. This a WP:SPS source and is not reliable. It is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
 * Ref 12 This the front of the Slovenia organisation. It is not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS
 * Ref 13 This is another front page of the website in Bosnia.  It is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS
 * Ref 14 A profile. Its not indepth failing WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 15 This the Italian version website. It is not independent.  Fails WP:SIRS
 * Ref 16 Listing article for the European organisation. A directory entry. It is non-rs.
 * Ref 17 University of Rome newspaper reporting on the IPO conference.
 * Ref 18 This an address by the IPO member. It is not independent and fails WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 19 The text is lifted wholesale from the company website. It is mostly WP:PRIMARY and is PR.
 * Ref 20 Non-RS.

Of the first 20 references, 19 are unsuitable to prove notabilty and one is a report on the conference. Its probably WP:PRIMARY. There is nothing in this first that proves the organisation is notable. Instead it is a whole a primary, links to their offices in different countries, but not enought to prove notability. Its a large international organisation but currently it still fails WP:NCORP.  scope_creep Talk  23:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the rest of the refs above tommorrow.   scope_creep Talk  23:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but several editors have said which are the well-known credible daiy newspapers and state-controlled national media, and you did not check these but you checked others. Topjur01 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Lets examine the references then since it is late. I'll do the ones that show that the organization has been adequately covered by independent credible sources:


 * Ref 23 A detailed feature article about the organization, critical, published in a reputable international source BIRN BalkanInsight, based in Serbia.
 * Ref 28 Interview with the organization's head in Montenegro in a national news portal.
 * Ref 30 A news item about the organization's activity in a national news portal in Montenegro.
 * Ref 31 An interview with an international expert who spoke at the organization's large international event, in Večer, a large national newspaper in Slovenia.
 * Ref 32 A feature article about the orgization's large conference in a state-owned Slovenian Radio and Television broadcaster, the Radiotelevizija Slovenija. The same news appeared on TV, Radio, and Internet site of the national TV+Radio.
 * Ref 33 An interview in Siol, with an international expert who spoke at the organization's large international event. Siol is one of the two largest news portals in Slovenia.
 * Ref 37 A feature article about the orgization in one of the leading and reputable national newspapers, Večer, the newspaper being pubished since 1045 and the journalist is an award winning journalist with a PhD.
 * Ref 38 A state-controlled national Slovenian Press Agency news item about the organization's activity. These news were re-published by dozens of radio stations, media, and portals.
 * Ref 39 A state-controlled national Slovenian Press Agency news item about the organization's activity. These news were re-published by dozens of radio stations, media, and portals.
 * Ref 40 The leading news portal in English in Slovenia, The Slovenia Times. It is a translated article by the Slovenian Press Agency, about the organization's activity.
 * Ref 41 A detailed feature article about the organization, critical, published in a reputable daily newspaper Dnevnik in Slovenia.

This should suffice. Topjur01 (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You've made a few mistakes here, e.g. interview with anybody in the organisation fails WP:ORGIND. I'm not sure your know how to interpret WP:NCORP. NCORP is very strict on these kind of things. So Ref 28 is failing WP:ORGIND. I will need go through these later   scope_creep Talk  09:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good attempt though. Kudos for that. If your staying then attending Afd would be excellent.   scope_creep Talk  09:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm confused by the allegation that this was written by a SPA? The creator of the current article has been around for more than a decade. What's missing from the article history here? -- asilvering (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * TNT - Among the assembled sources, I see two ( Dnevnik, RTV) that clearly provide independent, significant coverage of the organization, as opposed to either a) an interview with a representative b) descriptions of an event organized by them without description of the organization c) brief mention in passing regarding disaster relief coverage d) articles positively gushing about their disaster relief efforts that look more like PR than investigative journalism. The problem is that while the article as written follows the PR line that this is a storied scholarship and disaster relief organization, the Dnevnik and RTV pieces instead describes it as an organization that engages in false advertising regarding its relationship to the police, in addition to having ties to private security companies and far-right parties. RS like Balkan Insight and Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, which have been linked in this discussion, second this characterization, emphasizing the organization's ties to far-right parties when mentioning it in passing. I don't think the assembled coverage here meets ORGCRITE, although it comes close; still if additional coverage exists, it seems likely that the article would need to be completely rewritten to follow the weight of independent sources. signed,Rosguill talk 20:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree with Rosguill and, further above, scope_creep regarding the quality of the proposed sourcing. While there's large numbers of potential references, I don't believe they constitute the significant coverage in independent sources required for our inclusion policies. Daniel (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2023 (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.