Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Ecological Safety Collaborative Organization

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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Ecological Safety Collaborative Organization[edit]

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

Article about an organization that has no 3rd party reference to assert significance. Mys_721tx (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not an article of direct translation from Chinese, so that list of China-related deletion discussions is not correct in this way.

User:Mys 721tx, please provide the total same page or this article of this site in chinese, and at the same time please provide the total correct translation of the chinese Site you mentioned.

Please provide evidence by comparing that with this site, and then respond. Donny Young (talk | contribs) 21:32, 22 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Donny Young, if you want to fix the problem User:Mys 721tx brought up, you need to find coverage of IESCO in an independent reliable source. See the general notability guideline. Mys 721tx, thanks for your prolific contributions; if you think your WP:Block was appropriate, defensible, and intended globally, you can mention that. However, Donny Young's contribs here on en:wikipedia don't seem to have any copyright problems. Do you have a WP:NOTPUNITIVE policy on zh:wikipedia? FourViolas (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article should be deleted on the ground of copyright problems either. The block I upheld is of copyright concern though.-Mys_721tx (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 14:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gnews and gbooks has hardly any coverage. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:22, 5 January 2015 (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.