Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Network to Promote the Rule of Law

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 no consensus. This has been relisted 3 times, and no real consensus has been resulted. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 14:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Network to Promote the Rule of Law

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

Promotional. Unreferenced, and copyright violation. Rathfelder (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I am definitely not currently arguing to keep this article (on a cursory glance, the best source I have found is this, though I would guess there are others), the article itself is between eight and nine years old, from a time when our standards on referencing and promotionalism were far less developed than they are now. While the article should probably not be kept if it can not be brought up to current standards, it would be worth knowing if the nominator looked at the possibility of doing this before nominating. However, I am rather more concerned about the accusation of copyright violation, which does not state what the article is supposed to be a copyright violation of. This is particularly problematic as, in apparent copyright violations of Wikipedia articles this old, the copying is often from rather than to Wikipedia; the article is substantially different (and longer) than how it was when the article creator last edited it; and copyright violation is only a reason to delete an article (rather than particular revisions) if every previous version of the article contains a copyright violation. PWilkinson (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the content seems to be the same as the organisation's website I don't know which came first. I'm not anxious to see the article deleted, but it falls a long way below our current standards.Rathfelder (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast No indication given by Nom that he searched. But sources do turn up in my preliminary searches, in books and here: Murtaugh, C. (2013). The international network to promote the rule of law: A platform to promote justice and security in conflict-affected states. UN Chronicle, 49(4), 32-34. I think Nom should follow WP:BEFORE, and that someone should have a go at sourcing this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I improved the lede slightly, relying a couple of sources. More sources exist in both books [1] and in journal articles dealing with peacekeeping and rebuilding post-conflict societies. Certainly this neglected article cries out for improvement and the attention of someone familiar with the topic. I can, however, see no reason argument for deleting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an advertisement. This article just screams advertising. Parsley Man (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poor quality is not a reason to delete. The organization itself is notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 21 April 2016 (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/2016 April 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 30 April 2016 (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.