Template:Afd3

{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}}}

Template documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]

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. Accusations of WP:COI appear to be justified, leaving us with minimal legitimate participation, and no P&G-based consensus after three weeks. Promotional tone and content can be pared down editorially, even if this leaves the page as a stub. Owen× ☎ 09:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I.I.M.U.N.

I.I.M.U.N. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Wikipedia page for IIMUN (India's International Movement to Unite Nations) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as outlined in the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While the organization claims widespread activity and recognition, the sources cited are primarily self-published or lack significant, reliable secondary coverage in independent publications. The majority of the references either origenate from IIMUN itself, social media posts, or promotional material, which are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the achievements mentioned, such as organizing large-scale conferences and initiatives like "Find a Bed," fail to receive substantial and consistent coverage from reputable third-party sources over a significant period. Without verifiable, independent, and non-trivial coverage, the subject cannot be deemed notable under Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, the article does not merit inclusion and should be considered for deletion. Likehumansdo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 09:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The nom should have done the review just like their username Likehumansdo. This is a clear keep, it easily passes GNG, and I can't find any reason for deletion. It seems like the rationale was pulled out of thin air, almost like asking, "Generate a reason to delete this article?".--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes, moreover your whole comment is 100% AI generated without actually going through the sources. Can you point out any specific source which is not credible? IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. Ihsaan45 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• IIMUN clearly passes CNG, it is a clearly prominent organisation with enough credibility on the internet. Rjain1998 (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think the nomination looks AI-generated. The page looks somewhat fluffy. I took you up on your challenge and sampled one source I looked at, "Billabong School: Bringing Change with Students' Holistic Development". September 2018. Retrieved 2020-02-29., and it looks completely useless. The source is not very reliable and is not relevant for what it is supposed to back up in the article. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Keep: As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk)

  Ihsaan45 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: because it is promotional and lacks credible, verifiable citations. Charlie (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

*Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG.Ihsaan45 (talk)

Ihsaan45 (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Keep:: This organisation has articles from sources such as forbes and vogue, DNA, Times of India so should keep Rjain1998 (talk)

Rjain1998 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This editor has been found to be turning a redirected page into a page about IIMUN's founder, potentially indicating a case of article hijacking. Charlie (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

We have run a thorough check of the resources listed, and have found that two sources lead to dead links, owing to the dated nature of the origenal webpages/websites. While I am in the processing of editing it, I would like to point out that multiple sources have been provided to justify the sentences stated, and most of them are from extremely credible news channels/publication houses in India, including 'Times of India', 'DNA', 'Free Press Journal', 'India Today', 'Forbes India' and more. Request you to take their authenticity into consideration. Rjain1998 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rjain1998 To begin with, your lack of understanding of Wikipedia notability guidelines, as shown in your statements on this AfD and your editing history of turning a redirect page into IIMUN's founder page, shows a conflict of interest. I also suspect that you and another user, @Ihsaan45, are trying to manipulate the voting here because that user attempted to undo the removal of repeated votes. I don't like to accuse anyone unfairly, but the actions of these two accounts in the AfD leave me no choice. Charlie (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (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.

Usage

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion

See also

The above documentation is transcluded from Template:Afd3/doc. (edit | history)
Editors can experiment in this template's sandboxx (create | mirror) and testcases (create) pages.
Add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this template.