Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Middle East Studies Canada

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Middle East Studies Canada[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I am unable to uncover any significant reliable third party coverage of this fairly recently launched organization. The only sources I am able to turn up are the PR releases by the institute and its partner Gaza University. Perhaps there are some sources in non-English reliable sources that I am unable to discover? But barring those it appears the institute is just not notable by Wikipedia standards. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on this diff and the author's username, it appears that the author has a COI. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn: That isn't the author, BTW. The author is User:F.ali214. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce to a stub. / Reluctant delete. I have a feeling that one day there will be reliable, third-party sources about this organisation. However, at the moment there is not, as far as we can tell. If we don't have any reliable, third-party sources then it becomes very difficult to write a neutral article about it. We could reduce it to a stub and then wait to see if it gets mentioned in third-party sources such as newspapers. I would be happy to add it to my watch list to make sure that it doesn't get expanded by a load of non-neutral stuff. If people aren't happy with that solution then I guess the only option is to delete it. Yaris678 (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reducing an article to a stub that has no established notability doesn't really make sense to me. If there is no notability established (as it seems there isn't), then deletion is the option normally. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2013 (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.