Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Palestine Studies


 * 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. (non-admin closure) → TheSpecialUser TalkContributions* 05:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Institute for Palestine Studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

not notable organization - i have tried for a while to find anything notable in any RS anywhere in googleland, but to no avail. if someone better than me can do so, great. otherwise, we can delete it Soosim (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added some refs, including from Encyclopedia of the Palestinians and AMEinfo.com. It could do with more references, but as a research institute with numerous publications it's almost certainly notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - 1000's of hits on Google, Books and Scholar, publishes the well known Journal of Palestinian Studies, affiliated with two U.S. universities, distinguished academics on its board, looks solidly notable to me. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Cola: thanks for finding that haaretz article about funding.  gato: except for that one haaretz article about funding, i don't see them mentioned in the top 100 google 'everything' search with any RS at all. did i miss something? yes, they are referenced as an academic institution, but they are not showing up in RS anywhere.... that was my point. Soosim (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It's most famous for its Journal, an RS which has its own article, but scan the returns from Google about the Institute: there really just isn't any interesting material out there worth collating as a Wikipedia article. That's not a negative or positive reflection on the IPS; it's just small and specialised. I see, for example, the German Wikipedia has an article, but it's really just a list of names, even if a few of them are prominent in the field. The English one is not much different, just a copy-paste of info from the Institute's website.~ Iloveandrea (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Note: this editor has subsequently been both indefinitely blocked, and indefinitely banned fromm all articles and discussions about the Israel-Palestine topic area. RolandR (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - Internationally renowned research institute. Over 600,000 hits just on google books, over 4,000 on google scholar. Are editors who are calling for deletion suggesting that they know for a fact, or even have reasonable grounds to believe, that there is not enough material in these thousands of books and journals to warrant a wikipedia article? I had a quick look myself and have added some refs to the article, more to follow. Dlv999 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-known and established publishing group. Needs more referencing, but I see no good reason to have the article deleted. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The IPS is an extremely well-known and respected body, which has attracted considerable attention in reliable sources. See for example Haaretz, Newsweek, New York Times and many more. There is a 1978 article in the Anchorage Daily News describing the institute as "an independent, highly-professional organization -- a kind of Brookings".. In short, there is no case for deletion, and this AfD should be closed as a snow Keep. RolandR (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the publisher of four journals, the burden of proof for deletion would seem to be a high one indeed. Adequate sources enumerated above to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - for all reasons mentioned above. CarolMooreDC 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - No removal for political reasons. Otherwise we can easily find enough non-articles. Canada-Israel Committee. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dlv999 and RolandR raise very strong points/references concerning both the notability of the article and the abundance of RS on the question. Nomination statement asserts google-search found nothing. I don't think that's true or persuasive. Thus, I'm voting to Keep. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2012 (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.