Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No sources are provided, and searching for sources really only shows "x person from Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy says..." or a short, surface-level biography of the org--not anything to indicate noteworthiness. Relevant policy: WP:NORG. It's remained a stub from 2006 with little change. SWinxy (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. SWinxy (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This organization seems to have played a key role in the nuclear non-proliferation treaties of the 1990s. Its work is described in this book. Also, on p. 77, it says "During the CTBT negotiations, the Acronym Institute came to be regarded by many delegations as the 'ngo negotiator' on the treaty." At worst, merge and redirect to Johnson's article. SpinningSpark 11:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Because...

Passing mentions in academic paper:

Researchers: Help free the world of nuclear weapons. (2020). Nature, 584(7819), 7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02274-9

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/maggie-and-me-by-those-who-love-her-and-those-who-didn-t-1676343.html

Their executive director is often quoted in mainstream news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/international-campaign-to-abolish-nuclear-weapons-wins-nobel-peace-prize/2017/10/06/9c05dcb0-aa0b-11e7-9a98-07140d2eed02_story.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/3/15/uk-spent-1-3m-on-security-for-worlds-biggest-weapons-fair

They are a source that is used in scholarly journals:

Minor, E. (2015). Changing the discourse on nuclear weapons: The humanitarian initiative. International Review of the Red Cross, 97(899), 711-730. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S181638311600014X
Dee, M. (2012). EXPLAINING EUROPEAN UNION PERFORMANCE IN THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY REVIEW CONFERENCE: LIMITED AMBITIONS BUT PRAGMATIC POSITIONING1. UNISCI Discussion Papers, (30), 11-26. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/explaining-european-union-performance-nuclear-non/docview/1269113306/se-2

...however, I must say weak, because I'm making an argument that appeals to WP:COMMONSENSE and is at odds with policy. Normally we'd need one in depth source to justify this. But this is an anti-nuclear organisation, decades of history, not for profit motivations, the sort of organisation that people might seek out on Wikipedia. I think keeping this adds encyclopaedic value, even if it doesn't have the normal sourcing, and I hope that others might let this pass on the basis of the cumulative of what I've written above. CT55555 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2022 (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.