Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Global Concern

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. Neither the Keep nor the Delete !votes were particularly persuasive, and they are numerically balanced. The nomination has been relisted twice already; time for a close. MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Global Concern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

All I could find in a WP:BEFORE search on the Institute of Global Concern was one minor news mention, one minor book mention and a bunch of web links and Facebook posts saying an event was sponsored by the IGC. Quite simply, fails WP:ORGDEPTH on its own. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - very few sources available, so fails WP:GNG. It is possible, of course, that there is significant coverage in Japanese sources, but they would need to be cited in the article to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's of course hard to say, but I would assume there are Japanese sources for this. Web site seems to indicate a notable organisation, with lots of publications. I am wondering if there is a entry in the Japo Wikipedia site. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No demonstration of notability given the total absence of third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Deathlibrarian. The organization is notable. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 03:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A strong keep. The organization is very notable. There are pages of independent references on the web, several of which I have added to the article.Jzsj (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I would like to have seen the article improved by the accompanying Keep votes but there's nothing including from my searches to actually suggests this can then be notable and improved. Nothing suggestive of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 27 May 2016 (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.