Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Peace and Security Institute

: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 KEEP. -Splash - tk 19:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

=[[International Peace and Security Institute]]=

:{{la|International Peace and Security Institute}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Peace_and_Security_Institute Stats])

:({{Find sources|International Peace and Security Institute}})

Article, created by an apparent employee of the subject, describes an organization that fails the notability requirements of WP:GNG. While a variety of prominent people appear to have lent their name to the enterprise as "advisors", notability is not inherited and there is a marked scarcity of 3d party reliable sources discussing this organization or its work. JohnInDC (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Borderline case, benefit of the doubt. Of the references, two wp:notability-suitable ones have some small/medium coverage of them. Several others mention them. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak keep without prejudice This does look to be quite a borderline case, but I think the benefit of the doubt should go to keeping the article; perhaps closing without prejudice to re-nominating in a month or so for re-assessment? As North8000 says at least two of the sources are reliable to do show notability to an extent, and there the Institute is mentioned in others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 17:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

: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.