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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 13:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC) reply

United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP)

United Nations Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

There is no independent reliable coverage of this organization, as it's not notable. It's one of countless UN programs. The page fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is already a Wikipedia article for United Nations Office for Partnerships which is the UN body which the UNFIP is part of. There's no reason UNFIP should have its own article when it can be succinctly covered in the UNOP article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:38, 10 July 2021 (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.