Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chartered Institute of Development Finance

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. Sandstein 20:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chartered Institute of Development Finance[edit]

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

institute that was created in 2016 and almost no links on the web. does not meet criteria WP:CORPORATE Domdeparis (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The organisation appears to have existed since 2013 [1]. However I am not seeing a presence in reliable 3rd party coverage, so at this point it appears WP:TOOSOON to meet the WP:ORGDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: Additional independent, third party sources (University of Cape Town, Agricagrowth Institute, and the academic journal "Africagrowth Agenda") have now been cited to establish notability. MarxyMarx123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the sources that you have provided is that they just identify the organisation in a cursus but do not talk about it as such and one of them is a partner organisation. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added a citation, SADC-DFRC (South African Development Community Development Finance Resource Centre), an independent secondary source discussing the activities of the Chartered Institute of Development Finance. --MarxyMarx123 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For a notable professional institute in a country where English is used as much in professional circles as it is in South Africa I would expect there to be at least a few sources found by Google News or Google Books for its English name, but there are none. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the added sources are primary sources. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Weakly sourced with primary sources and looks like it may not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. -- Dane ^talk 05:42, 9 December 2016 (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.