Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundation for Effective Politics

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. WP:REFUND applies, but only for a sourced recreation. After 3 weeks, the article is still as entirely unsourced as it has been since 2008, making deletion mandatory per WP:V. Sandstein 18:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Effective Politics

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

Few references in media, does not meet WP:GNG and WP:IRS. Unreferenced article. Shobhit102 | talk 04:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 04:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shobhit102 | talk 04:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability isn't determined by sources in the article, but by coverage in existing sources. Per WP:GNG sources do not have to be in English, and searching the Russian name yields two good sources in Russian. Here is one entirely about the Foundation from gazeta.ru, one of the most popular new sites in Russia. Another from ria.ru a state-run news source in Russi is here. I don't speak Russian, so I don't really know where to look for more sources, but the fact that two relatively prominent Russian news organizations have written two separate articles on the topic convinces me that this is notable. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep between Wugapodes' sources and Media and Power I think there is more than sufficient to prove notability. It is a constantly talking body (less so now, but heavily over the years) so I'd be shocked not to come across plenty more sources that can meet sigcov if need be. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 14 June 2018 (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.