Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPEV

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPEV[edit]

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

Only sources are primary; notability of group has not been established. McDoob AU93 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see WP:BEFORE, notability could easily be established with a 20 second google book search. See for example; http://books.google.com/books?id=GFAnPZsdhPsC&pg=PA165 and http://books.google.com/books?id=fRJtB2MNdJMC&pg=PA417 --Soman (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BURDEN and WP:BOLD, be my guest and add whatever is needed to improve notability. Not sure why it wasn't done at the outset when the article was started, but that's a discussion for another time. --McDoob AU93 18:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs apart, there is no iron law that says that all unreferenced material automatically have to be deleted. When encountering an ill-written or poorly referenced article, improvement is a better first move than deletion. --Soman (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Most of the text in the article was the same words as on the COMNAP site so has been removed. I've added revised text linking to other articles on their projects, with book references. There is enough evidence for this as a worthwhile stub which can also be cross-linked on these other articles. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notable institute. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (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.