Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Gulf 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. v/r - TP 02:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Gulf Affairs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find sources which discuss this institute in any great depth, which would give it notability for an encyclopaedia. Russavia Let's dialogue 23:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google Books search shows extensive discussion of this Saudi dissident group in English. There is a strong presumption that reliable sources exist in Arabic.  This stub should be improved and expanded instead of being deleted.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Creation of a banned user (G5). --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable there are plenty of sources that show notability 27 hits in Google book and 17 in scholar.--Shrike (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * comment. The creator has been indefed but not technically "banned" and a G5 was declined. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. He was a sock of a indef-blocked user. I stand corrected. The Speedy deletion request was not declined though, it was simply reverted by another user. If a SD reviewer have had the chance to see the notice, he/she would have delete it, as it clearly qualifies for G5. --Frederico1234 (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural delete - Creation of a sock of an indefinitely blocked user. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – AfD is about the notability of topics for inclusion in Wikipedia, and not about users who created or contributed to articles. User status is not correlated with topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Just click on Google News and you will see that the subject is more than relevant, and I suspect the article could be vastly expanded. The status of the article's creator is irrelevant And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Read through some of that.  The New York Times quotes their leader on behalf of the organization.  The Washington Post published an entire article by one of their members. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/2/militias-ensuring-libyas-democratic-future/ "Matthew Mainen is a policy analyst at the Institute for Gulf Affairs." Honestly now.  There is ample coverage out there providing they are a notable organization.   D r e a m Focus  01:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Numerous reliable sources for the topic pass General notability guidelines for the article's inclusion on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2011 (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.