Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cap-Net UNDP

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cap-Net UNDP[edit]

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

WP:TNT: this article is entirely written in the organisation's own jargon. Needs a full rewrite to become an encyclopedic article, if its topic is notable at all. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article is not good, but the organization is notable and worthy of having an entry in Wikipedia. Does it hurt to have this page here (with the hatnotes saying that it needs improvement)? EvM-Susana (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to draft & userfy but I'll have to go with delete for now as my searches simply found nothing to suggest better and more solid coverage aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 07:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Needs rewriting from scratch. When you do remember to include outside sources and not try to list the entire staff of the organization. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delette - Searches did not turn up anything to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 22 September 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.