Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAFISA (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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

TAFISA
AfDs for this article:


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

Non-notable organization; it's a COI creation, and it has been tagged for years now. It's been at AfD before, where it undoubtedly would have been deleted had it had more eyes on it. One or two weak mentions came up in the last AfD but not enough for passing the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting to get some feedback on the Redirect suggestion. I was going to go with that option but I don't see Ethnosport mentioned on the article under discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete for WP:ORGCRIT. There are no foundation references that met all  (1) significant coverage, (2)  independent, (3) reliable, and (4) secondary source. Eight of thirteen references are self-published on the organization's own website.  The independent ones talk about the athletes and results, not the organizer.  Rhadow (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports,  and Germany. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ethnosport as a WP:ATD, largely per User:Rhadow. The references present do not provide significant, independent coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The page was originally created as a split from Ethnosport and the organization could be a reasonable search term, so redirect rather than deletion seems most appropriate.  I disagree with COI claims as the article was created almost a decade ago and has a large list of editors.  Frank   Anchor  19:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objection with a delete close as opposed to a redirect close based on below arguments. I merely suggested the redirect target as this  article was created as a WP:SPINOFF from it several years ago.  Frank   Anchor  19:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete as doesn't pass WP:GNG. Redirect is not suitable as not mentioned at target, and doesn't appear to be a benefit to bloating that article by adding information about this non-notable organisation. A redirect wuld fail the redirect guidelines, as not mentioned at target. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't meet criteria to merit an article. --  StarryNightSky11   ☎  22:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find reliable secondary sources on this organization. There are online mentions of people or organizations participating in these events, but I haven't found any reliable secondary sources about the organization itself. Edits have been made which dispute who is in charge of the organization and where it is headquartered. There are no sources for those changes outside of organizational websites. I'm not certain the organization actually exists, or if it does, where it is based and who is in charge. It's also possible that there are two organizations which share the name, or there is disagreement inside the organization. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 23:54, 11 February 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.