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!} 23:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manyame Conservation Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Manyame Conservation Trust

Organization that does not show any evidence of satisfying organizational notability or general notability. Already moved from article space to draft space by User:Singularity42, then recreated by copy-paste by originator, and still does not make a credible claim of significance, let alone of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Zimbabwe. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafity or delete. At the moment, there is insufficient information or reliable sources to support notability. The version I moved to draft has now had a history merge with this version, leaving it open to re-drafity, where the author could work on it to see if they can improve the sources and basis to establish notability. As it currently stands, if not moved to draftspace, it would have to be deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon further reflection, I am changing my !vote to just delete. This was draftified years ago, the (same) author let it go stale and it was deleted without the author making any claims of notability. The author then created the earlier version today, which was draftified, and then instead of working on that to improve any claim of notability, just re-created it again in mainspace. I think there has been sufficient time and opportunities to establish notability. A conclusive AfD will help settle this with some finality. Singularity42 (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nommed. Search finds nothing more than social media etc., and those two RS articles already cited, which just regurgitate the organisation's press statements, without providing sigcov of the organisation itself. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom – robertsky (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Draftification won't help. Azuredivay (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2022 (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.