Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Sanctions Project


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  01:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Internet Sanctions Project

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

Sources here are mostly primary sources, even on user-generated platforms, and many do not even mention the Internet Sanctions Project. It does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. MarioGom (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations,  and Internet. MarioGom (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. It looks like it meets WP:GNG to me... The original author only included four citations to mainstream media references (The Register, the Washington Post, Heise and the Associated Press), but those aren't insignificant, and a quick search found a ton more, which I added a few of. The news media seems to view both the project itself as significant, and the opinions of the people who're doing the project as individually significant. And it seems like most of the organizers are notable individually as well, since there are preexisting Wikipedia pages about them. Perhaps the article would be improved if any of the primary sources which weren't contributing usefully were culled, and the remainder were moved into the External links section? Otherwise, for a relatively short article, it seems well-written and well-supported with citations. EVhotrodder (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked sock --Blablubbs (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which sources are you referring to, exactly? I see 8 hits for Internet Sanctions Project on Google. The Washington Post piece do not mention the project at all. It's just a quote by one of the founders? That poses two problems: 1) notability is not inherited, there may be some info due for the founder page, but that doesn't make this project notable, and 2) WP:ORGCRIT requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that's simply not existent here. MarioGom (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The references in significant mainstream international media refer to the letter and solution proposed by this active organization, which seems to play a significant role in an important contemporary debate. Seems consistent with WP:GNG and WP:NCORP to me. Detlevore (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you mention WP:NCORP, can you cite the exact sources that provide significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject? MarioGom (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article has lots of references, but none of them are about this organization. In fact, I couldn't find one that even mentioned the organization. A Google news+archive search turns up zero results. I am not sure what references in mainstream media outlets the keep !voters could possibly be talking about.  agt x  15:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Lack of SIGCOV in RS. Topic fails WP:NCORP. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2022 (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.