Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidaridad

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 keep. Sandstein 15:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solidaridad

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable non profit; significant RS coverage to meet WP:ORGDEPTH not found. Article cited to a self-published source, not suitable for establishing notability: "We have more than 45 years of experience in the sustainability of production chains. Together with everyone in the chain - from farmer to multinational - we work on fair products that do not harm human or environmental and are profitable for all." Extensively edited by several SPAs to introduce promotional material. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Fail GNG and Non-profit. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changed in light of below L3X1 (distænt write) 00:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I first thought delete (and closed it as such), but checking the links in other articles it seems that this really was the first organization to declare the principles of Fair Trade. Apparently a further search for sources is needed, There may be some in the linking articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG DGG (deleted page Solidaridad (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solidaridad (XFDcloser) The page is still deleted from when you closed this. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some of the additional available material, see the Dutch WP via Google translate. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably headed for delete, but as per DGG some extra source searching could perhaps turn something up, so maybe another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH: "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stubabout an organization." There are lots of in-depth articles in Dutch, for example 1, 2 3. I suggest withdrawing the nomination. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that sources have been presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per gidon's searching. Thanks for doing that. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2017 (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.