Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Strategy and Reconciliation
- 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 delete. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Institute for Strategy and Reconciliation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
blatant spam, speedy removed by an SPA WuhWuzDat 16:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep probably notable, though the present article needs drastic trimming. Even as it is , though, its descriptive not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No doubt a praiseworthy organization, but not notable. Google News Archive turns up a single article, in AsiaPulse, involving a quote from a person affiliated with the institute. That's all. No Reliable Sources are provided in the article. This discussion should not be about the style or the length of the article; those are fixable. It should be about the need to demonstrate notability - and I didn't find any. --MelanieN (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of reliable sources to show notability. "Probably notable" without evidence isn't sufficient to justify an article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete No significant coverage in reliable sources is a lack of notability, but the tone issues and sentences like "As a think tank and international relief and development organization headquartered in Washington DC, ISR takes great interest in young and innovative minds." are purely promotional and this should be G11'd. —fetch·comms 01:12, 7 September 2010 (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.