Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Australian Institute of Polish Affairs

: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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[The Australian Institute of Polish Affairs]]=

:{{la|The Australian Institute of Polish Affairs}} ([{{fullurl:The Australian Institute of Polish Affairs|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Australian Institute of Polish Affairs}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

fails WP:ORG, lack of significant third party coverage [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Australian+Institute+of+Polish+Affairs%22&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=r]. google search mainly gives directory listings. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The article seems to have been written by a new user. Please don’t bite. Missing references must be added to check for vios and accuracy. I think the above nominator could actually be adopting this user instead? --Poeticbent talk 21:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

: you have not demonstrated any reliable sources which prove the article meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

:: {{done}}. I added a quick selection of ext. links just now. --Poeticbent talk 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

:::the sources merely verify the organisation's existence but do not establish its notability. there is no significant coverage in reliable sources such as major newspapers. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete No evidence that WP:ORG is met. Nominating articles for deletion on the grounds of notability is not a criticism of the editor(s) responsible for starting and writing the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Added Template:Infobox Organization. As of now, the article looks as good as any. Please take a second look. Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 04:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:ORG, reliable sources do not appear to indicate anything other than mere existence. Orderinchaos 11:24, 6 July 2009 (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.