Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable subject. This is an advertisement for the organization. Thenightaway (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added numerous sources from the United Nations and a journal article that help establish notability for this article.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 02:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The sources that you added are all self-sourced: they are published by the subject itself and/or authored by the organization's staff. These do not substantiate notability and they are not the kind of independent sourcing on which we can build an article. Thenightaway (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Added more sources, including from a peer reviewed journal, the United Nations, the Australian Council for Educational Research, Harvard, and Columbia. For nonprofits like this you're not going to find a ton of material out there that they haven't been involved with in some way shape or form. Look up some UN programs, they are clearly notable, but there won't be a ton of outside press about them. The rules here are principles, and in cases like this we need to be flexible in how we apply WP:GNG/WP:SNG.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 22:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Passes WP:ORG just barely; although the article needs to be trimmed of non-independent sources and could use a re-write. There are two sources which establish the INEE passes WP:ORGCRIT. See the source analysis below.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2022 (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.