Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Investigations Group

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. Merge/redirect proposal may be evaluated at talk. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 04:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Investigations Group

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Press coverage seems incidental, self-published or minor. May be worth mentioning within the Center for Inquiry article, but I don't think it merits something in its own right. Shritwod (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also to see whether this could be merged to Center for Inquiry.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Center for Inquiry#The Independent Investigations Group per nom. I think the existing coverage of this in Center for Inquiry is sufficient, so no need to merge. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While I agree that the section IIG in the media is too long and full of trivia, the overall article succeeds in establishing the organization's notability. Merging into the CFI article, which is already large and sprawling, would not be an improvement. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:05, 14 July 2017 (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.