Talk:International Summit Council for Peace

In which category to add this article?

Hi everyone. I just created this article and added it to 2 categories, Unification church affiliated organizations, considering that the organization was created during the UPF conference (an organization that is affiliated with the Unification Church judging by the information on the Wikipedia article on the Unification Church) and its members actively participate in UPF conferences, at least based on the available materials and sources, and Peace organizations, given that from the available materials and sources I understand this as one of the organization's main goals. However, those proposed categories were deleted and no new categories were added, so I'm confused what to do now? Can someone among the older and more experienced Wikipedia members analyze this article and suggest or add new categories for this article, considering that currently no categories have been added to this article, and I don't know if that's okay and if it can stay that way. I am asking for advice and help. Thank you very much for your understanding and help. I am sincerely grateful for the great support of the Wikipedia community and everything I have been able to learn so far, and I will try to continue learning and be an even better Wikipedia editor. I am waiting for your suggestions. DanielCro (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Please help here. it seems to me that I have found enough credible sources of information for this article, as many as 12. Can you tell me which part of the article needs to be supported with additional sources of information so that I can reanalyze the article and look for additional sources of information? Thank you in advance for your help and understanding. I don't have that much experience on Wikipedia yet and I'm still learning. Thank you for your support and help. I really appreciate it DanielCro (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

A way the article could be improved regarding referencing is to better use in-line citations. Perhaps place the relevant source at the end of each paragraph or when a new piece of info is presented to the reader so they can verify the content of the article. - GA Melbourne (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I really appreciate your help and support. In fact, I think that I have supported every piece of information in the article with relevant sources, but I will check one more time. DanielCro (talk) 08:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi team, thanks for all the advice and help, you are the best. Here, I have added additional sources of information, for parts of the article where there were not enough sources of information or the information was not sufficiently supported with sources. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thank you for your understanding and help to make this article the best it can be. DanielCro (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing and AfD Nomination

Hi @DanielCro, In order for a subject to have a Wikipedia page it needs to meet our notability rules. In particular, this page falls afoul of WP:INHERITORG which says: An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable

Two important things to pull out:

• Just having important people like Goodluck Jonathon and Hun Sen are associated with an organization doesn't make that organization notable. Adding more citations just saying "so-and-so spoke at an ISCP conference" doesn't prove the ISCP's notability, it just proves that the speakers are notable
• Notability requires reliable, independent coverage. Government press releases are not an independent source. Neither are ISCP press releases that get reprinted verbatim in local news outlets.

Since you've removed the PROD tag but not added any new sources showing how the ISCP meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I'll submit an AfD later today. You'll be pinged when I do so.

Lastly, please stop re-adding removed sources without noting that you are doing so in the edit summaries. It gives the misleading impression that you're adding new material rather than just re-adding things that other editors removed. CamAnders (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up: I just noticed that you've re-added deadlinks that I specifically removed, without providing a new, live link to the source. Sourcing on Wikipedia must be verifiable, meaning that someone else can go check the source if they want. Adding deadlinks back to the page is not constructive and will not help this page survive a deletion discussion. CamAnders (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Dead links? I don't understand, yesterday I found and opened all those links again. Therefore, all Wikipedia users can open those articles and verify all sources of information. DanielCro (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Dead links? I don't understand, yesterday I found and opened all those links again.
— User:DanielCro

That's because I removed the dead links. The link you added to onlinenigeria.com is a dead link. I searched several archives to try to rescue the link and then deleted it when I failed to find an archived copy.

You're welcome to try going to it yourself right here!

CamAnders (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You are right about that one link, but all the other 4-5 links that I added yesterday are fine, the sources can be verified, and the additional content and information prove that this is an important article about a very important political initiative, for Wikipedia and beyond.

Thank you for your help and support trying to search for archives in order to rescue missing articles, I'm really grateful to you for this effort.

This only shows how important the WP community and mutual support are in achieving a common goal, sharing important information with the public DanielCro (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if they were dead I would have deleted them. In general, it's good form to make small edit with precise edit summaries so other editors can see what we're doing. CamAnders (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, thank you very much for your support and understanding. DanielCro (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

In any case, let other WP editors check all the sources of information and make a decision. I will accept the decision of the WP community. DanielCro (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If other WP editors conclude that the sources of information are not reliable or that they are dead links (which I do not agree with because I opened all the links without any problems) and that it is not an important topic for Wikipedia, I will accept such a decision. DanielCro (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)