Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interhemispheric Resource Center

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 Draftify. Consensus favors moving this page into draft space. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interhemispheric Resource Center

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Was prodded, then deprodded with the addition of a single reference, which shows the place existed at one time. Then it was moved into draftspace to encourage development, but was shortly moved back into the mainspace without improvement. But searches show very little coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was subject of AfD before. Clearly notable enough, and even the one reference alone is useful. Very strange how some people want to get this deleted, and by any dishonest means. How on earth would moving to Draft "encourage development"? Quite the contrary, without even a redirect the article would not be found in mainspace, and from Draft it could then be deleted without AfD. Policy clearly says moving to Draft "is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion," but evidently this was what was intended here, as proven by this AfD started right after I moved it back from Draft. Mewulwe (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article atdoi:10.1163/156916307X188979, which needs access through an academic library or by payment, has a fair amount of coverage of this organisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until sourcing is improved. I moved the article to draft space because it was both promotional (the bulk of the article is 2 quotes from the organization's mission statement) and inadequately sourced, in line with prior advice. This was not meant as a"backdoor route to deletion", since draft space provides an area for editors to improve an article when it doesn't yet meet Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. The AfD nominator (Onel5969) is a different editor, and we did not "conspire" to delete this article.
The previous AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Relations Center, concluded that the"subject is found to lack notability", and the article was redirected to Interhemispheric Resource Center. I note that draftification was also suggested in that discussion.
The article cites a library catalog listing in SNAC that does not show significant coverage of the IRC. Phil Bridger's source from Critical Sociology is good, and I've added it to the article, but it's only one source, and we need multiple qualifying sources to establish notability. I wasn't able to find additional sources that would allow the IRC to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:ORG (particularly with respect to WP:ORGDEPTH) or WP:NGO. Since there is a chance that these sources may be available (due to the Library of Congress designation), draftification gives editors more time to find sources and serves as an alternative to deletion. — Newslinger talk 17:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. The SNAC source is basically a directory listing, and appears to be single-sourced to some IRC documents, so not really independent either. I'm fine with draftifying this as a WP:ATD. That's not a backdoor to deletion. It's a way to get it out of mainspace (where it certainly qualifies for the front door to deletion in its current state) and allow time for somebody to research better sourcing. As a procedural note, moving a page while a discussion is running is not a good idea; see the last bullet point of WP:AFDEQ. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I moved the article to draft before it was nominated for deletion. Doing so during the discussion would definitely be ill-advised. — Newslinger talk 13:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. August 31 did indeed happen before September 1st. Note to self: improve calendar reading skills. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Undoubtedly this body appears to have had some importance but, equally clearly, the sources are not yet in the article to meet WP:GNG. Draftifying to enable the article to be worked on looks a pragmatic way forward. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Newslinger. I would also support a weak delete, but I feel moving this to draft is appropriate. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:52, 10 September 2019 (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.