Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOSAD Ireland

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. ✗plicit 11:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOSAD Ireland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable organization. WP:BEFORE yields only social media accounts and irrelevant content. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Not convinced that WP:NGO or WP:SIGCOV is met. In terms of WP:NGO, while the charity's operations do appear to be "national in scale", the scope is limited. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, coverage in national news outlets is limited. While a search in the Irish Times returns only a few mentions, in each case the subject is not the primary topic of the news story. And, while a search in the Independent News & Media (INM) stable of papers returns more than a few mentions, in each case the coverage (in "local notes" or "district news" sections of INM's regional papers) are routine mentions of events organised by the charity. Rather than in-depth coverage about the charity/subject itself. I may be missing something, but I'm not sure how this charity is any more notable than any of the 10,000 other charities registered in Ireland. (Each of which isn't automatically notable.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is primary and I cannot find anything out there that would improve it. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking indepth third party coverage as per WP:ORGDEPTH. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.