Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute: Almost all of the sources cited in the article are primary sources.  The only sources I've been able to uncover that discuss the organization in-depth are from trade or gun hobbyist publications, which fails ORGIND (particularly here, where the trade publications are also run by organizations that have ties to the firearms manufacturing industry).  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Firearms ,  and United States of America .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 16:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] SAAMI documents are widely used, e.g. at the UN, see https://unece.org/search_content_unece? keyword=saami or https://meetings.unoda.org/meeting/62086/documents .  It's unlikely you'll uncover in depth discussion from third parties about most standards bodies, so let's be ready to remove International Electrotechnical Commission too.  Standard bodies are important because of the impact they have on everyday life, not because the NY Times wrote about them...  Also  a standard bodies run by industry actors is nothing out of the ordinary, see for example Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards JidGom ( talk ) 17:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Many standards bodies have received significant coverage (see, e.g., [7] and [8] ).  If a standards body has not received significant coverage, it is not notable per NCORP; organizations are not inherently notable.  I only pointed out that SDOs are industry-run because it's relevant to whether any sources are sufficiently independent.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ JidGom : If you modify your comment after someone has already replied, please indicate what parts have been edited using strikethroughs and insertions per WP:TALK#REVISE .  Best, voorts ( talk / contributions ) 17:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry about that, I entirely missed that you already answered as I was editing.  I added URLs referencing the organisation activity that are not from trade rags.  You'll hopefully agree that the UN references pass the significant, independent, reliable and secondary criteria...  The main issue here is that trade rags seem to be much better at SEO than more important organization like ANSI or the UN, making it look like all coverage is from industry rags...  JidGom ( talk ) 18:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I disagree that the links you've provided meet NCORP because they're search results, and the first search result from the first link is a submission by SAAMI , which is obviously not independent.  If you'd like me to evaluate sources that you think establish notability, please provide your three best sources .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 18:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added https://esango.un.org/civilsociety/consultativeStatusSummary.do? profileCode=2718 as reference WRT UN ECOSOC status and that's as canonical as it can gets JidGom ( talk ) 11:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what you mean by canonical, but the fact that one organization (org A) has status with another, notable organization (org B) does not make org A notable under NCORP .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I have added 5 references to the article.  For lack of a better place, I put them in the "References" section although they are not inline citations; I'm sure this violates the Manual of Style in multiple ways but there you go.  National Institute of Justice ( United States Department of Justice ), Royal Canadian Mounted Police , The Trace , Center for American Progress , The Washington Post .  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 19:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree that the article from The Trace could establish notability.  The Center for American Progress piece is largely a summary of that source, so I wouldn't count it towards establishing notability.  The rest of the sources do not provide significant coverage of the organization in my opinion.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 20:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep appropriate number of non primary sources have been added.  14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC) JidGom ( talk ) 14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well many primary sources have been added, that was the issue from the start.  Somehow when I pointed that International Electrotechnical Commission had exactly the same issues the tag added is asking for primary sources not deletion...  IMHO this passes the criteria defined in WP:NGO .  JidGom ( talk ) 17:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I tagged the IEC page for relying on too many primary sources.  Primary sources do not establish notability.  Additionally, WP:NGO does not establish presumptive notability, but rather notes that particular non-profits are usually notable.  NGO still requires citation to several independent, reliable sources with significant coverage.  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the five refs I added to the article 7 November as noted above.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 22:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , now that it is sufficiently referenced.  Owen× ☎ 00:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  [9] and [10] combine to meet GNG.  Arbitrarily0 ( talk ) 05:08, 23 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep