Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of World Affairs

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. → Call me Hahc21 16:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of World Affairs[edit]

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

This is a personal essay. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Soft Delete~~ Amazing how hard it is to find articles on a 90 year old organisation! I think this could be saved by someone who knows the field? Neonchameleon (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I guessed it would be notable which I linked the ARS. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Neonchameleon (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this topic is good enough for Encyclopedia Britannica is it good enough for Wikipedia. The content though is a problem written in the first person like From the reading I have completed on the IWA, it became very clear that.. Who is "I"? Probably copied from somewhere else in a different context. There is sourcing: "Institute of World Affairs" site:.gov and "Institute of World Affairs" site:.edu Looks like the topic passes WP:NGO. AfD is topic-level not content-level. -- GreenC 03:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a notable organization, and if a major print encyclopedia has an article on it, I agree Wikipedia should. I did some editing [1] and got rid of things like "and as funny as it is –as I write this paper for a college class". The article's creator wrote about himself and how he felt about things, instead of keeping it strictly encyclopedic. Dream Focus 09:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did some substantial rewriting to eliminate the personal essay portion. WP as a matter of principle has always from the first included everything with an article in major general encyclopedias. Inclusion in such works is a secure standard of notability: the established experts at traditional encyclopedic notability have judged them notable, and the articles in them are reliable tertiary sources. We include a lot more also, of course, but their coverage is the starting point for ours. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 11 March 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.