Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornell International Affairs Society


 * 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.  Sandstein  14:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cornell International Affairs Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable student organization. All references are either self-published (Medium) or from student papers. In short: fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   03:39, 29 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks much better, definitely a notable student organization as they're listed on the Cornell overview page of the US News Best Colleges List, the Cornell Chronicle (not student run) , and Best Delegate Colestefan (talk) 5:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * US News is trivial mention. Cornell Chronicle is not student run, but it is the in-house newspaper for Cornell, so roughly the equivalent of a PR source. Being noted on a model UN organization's blog also doesn't satisfy our general notability guidelines, and the coverage combined is certainly not up to the standards or WP:ORG. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless, you originally marked it for deletion because "All references are either self-published (Medium) or from student papers," which is no longer the case. It seems to be up to the standards set out by WP:ORG and is certainly a notable organization from the viewpoint of someone involved in the Cornell community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.23 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The new sources added are pretty far from what we would normally expect from an organization under WP:ORG: they are trivial or non-independent mentions in publications that would not be considered reliable sources. The same case for deletion remains: this is a student organization that is very good at what it does apparently, but is not notable in the sense of the word that we use it on Wikipedia. It could very well be noteworthy at Cornell, but that is not the same as saying it should have a separate page in a general reference encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you ought to go through and delete hundreds of student organizations that are similarly notable. Georgetown's International Affairs Relations Association only has references from Best Delegate, their own website, and their school paper. Yale is pretty much the same. No one has ever questioned those. You, Tony, just happened to find this page when there were very few references and now have placed a target on its back despite it being up to par with similar organizations. Wikipedia is not a finite or physical encyclopedia; something that is notable at Cornell, notable in the Ithaca community, and notable in the Model United Nations world has a place in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.125.23 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ORGDEPTH. There is significant coverage from reliable sources such as Oprah and problems originally cited by the complainant have been resolved (can't keep changing the benchmark). References are comparable to existing articles for similar organizations. Colestefan (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The question is whether this article meets WP:ORGDEPTH, which it doesn't in my view as I have explained above. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, mine is also an argument regarding WP:ORGDEPTH, as I explicitly stated. There is significant coverage from a variety of reliable sources. Period. You first said above that "All references are either self-published or from student papers" which is simply false now. When possible, editing should be done to improve the page instead of cavalier deletion as per WP:DEL-CONTENT. This has been done, so I rest my case. There is not consensus on this. Colestefan (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- sources offered at this AfD are either passing mentions or not independent of the subject (Cornell). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ken, we could mention every source in the article in this Afd, but that would not be productive. The article and its 17 sources speaks for itself now. They are independent of the subject, because it wouldn't make any sense to include all of this information in the Cornell page, thus it should have its own. 128.84.125.2 (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC) Austin

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  15:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Colestan and the IP.  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  20:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * can you explain how it meets NORG and GNG as your edit summary implies? The only source that gives it in depth coverage is Cornell's equivalent of a PR press. The other sources are a passing mention in the US News profile of the school and a blog post about a conference they hosted from a Model UN training organization. The only independent professional journalism source in the article is about a high school going to a conference, not actually about the student organization. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Really Tony? What you're saying is simply false. If you look at the sources there is more than that. From your original reasons to deletion to now, you've been underselling the sources in order to help your case. Do you have some kind of vendetta against this org? It seems like you're not arguing in good faith.
 * No, I don't have any sort of vendetta against this organization. I believe I randomly discovered it in the new pages backlog. I'm actually quite open to withdrawing an AfD if I have missed something, and have done so several occasions in the past. My only dog in this fight is that including non-notable organizations undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. A student organization with the level of coverage this organization has does not meet our guidelines, and they are typically deleted. L3X1 is the first non single-purpose account to express an opinion otherwise at this AfD, so I was asking them to elaborate given that their rationale was not very lengthy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Tony, I should be able to respond in less than half an hour.  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm not a single-purpose account. As for "to express an opinion otherwise," that's clearly a tactic to make it seem like the "consensus" is on your side and it's not appreciated. As previously mentioned, this is an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since you brought it up by saying "A student organization with the level of coverage this organization has does not meet our guidelines, and they are typically deleted," I'll mention it again. Similar clubs at Georgetown and Yale, with a similar level of coverage (arguably less), have not been deleted, so again it seems you're lying to help your case. And agreeing with the previous anonymous poster, you continue to undersell sources in order to help your case. The independent professional journalism you mentioned talks about the student organization and the conference they run. Colestefan (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They are referenced (in the title) as their president being the chair of UNESCO. They have also done a lot of work with the UN 2, 3, 4.CMUN coverage 5. Combined with the various posting by sources affiliated with Cornell, I believe there is enough coverage to count as Notable. While it is very hard to completly satisfy both the independent requirement and the GNG, what I read both int he article and in other non-RS covers for it. Personally, I would edit out the Structure sections, as it is a unnessecary list.   d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  21:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , that is Model United Nations: a student competition where high schoolers and college students that is not actually connected to the UN. The actual head of UNESCO is Irina Bokova. The other sources are either an advertisement for their conference, self-published (keynote speaker's personal website, and Odyssey.) The final source you provided is about a high school student winning an award, not about the organization itself. Thank you for responding (even if we disagree on this.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I concur with your general sentiment and would also like to add, with regards to the GNG, that the organization is the successor to the organization that "attended the first [ever] Model Assembly of the League of Nations (at Syracuse University) in 1927 and subsequently hosted their own assembly, believed to be the second ever conference, the next year," backed up by two sources. I agree that the structure sections could be changed. Colestefan (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable independent of the university. Second option would be to merge into a list of Cornell societies, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG per searches, and clearly doesn't come close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. References are either non-independent or trivial mentions.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.