Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations


 * 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. discounting the WP:SPA Secret account 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Possible hoax. Will retract deletion request with inline references to reliable, published, third party, sources. For more information see email and notes at. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-06t06:49z 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete Not sure what is thought to be a hoax. Much of the article belongs in the main Council on Foreign Relations article.  The Manhattan Committee has a site here.  My guess is it just started calling itself "Manhattan" rather than "New York", accounting for paucity of refs under that name.  That there were local committees set up by the CFR in 1938 in several cities is easily checked, by looking at these search results.  Here's a book on these committees. Here's an encyclopedia article on the Louisville committee.  I think we should try to have articles on the overarching organization affiliated to the CFR, the American Committees on Foreign Relations and each local group.John Z (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * is not a third party source, and none of the other refs are for this organization. Google News has nothing, and Google only has WP clones, , and this discussion about it being a possible scam. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-06t11:20z
 * There's no question there's a NYC committee, the question seems to be whether the nyccfr.org site and the name "manhattan committee ..." is associated with it, or is some kind of scam. The latter seems to be likely, but unproved. My keep was more directed to the real organizations which don't have any articles and to get more information about the nomination. The 1964 book on the committees does not have the word manhattan on any page according to google, so "Manhattan Committee ..." was not in use then, increasing the likelihood of it being unconnected to the CFR.John Z (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear now that the "Manhattan Committee on Foreign relations" is a (non-notable) hoax as suspected. Here is the official list of all the local ACFR committees. The Manhattan Committee is not on it, nor is there a local NYC committee, because the main Council on Foreign Relations has always been headquartered there, and so there apparently was no need for a local affiliate.John Z (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It seems clear that the CFR and the NYCFR are entirely distinct organizations. The only legitimate hit on the NYCFR is its website, which suggests that nobody really cares. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The only dispute regarding this page is the fact that the MCFR is affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations.  The summary states that "the committees on foreign relations were founded by the council on foreign relations in 1938"  that is a completely verifiable fact Here.  The Manhattan Chapter is a chapter of the American Committees on Foreign Relations Here. Furthermore, if that is the only problem with this entry, why not just edit that portion out?  Then we can all get back to doing more important, constructive, and fulfilling things. • createawiki (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2008
 * is not a reliable, published, third party source. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t21:42z
 * Delete It does seem that this committee is in some extended sense a child of the CFR, being na regional chapter of the ACFR. The problem, nonetheless, is that it isn't notable. Googling consistently fails to turn up anything of note. I can't even get something to turn up on the ACFR. The best hits I get merely trace these chapters back (through linkages) to the CFR. There is an article on at least one other regional chapter, and it has the same issues. If American Committees on Foreign Relations can be made viable, then perhaps these regional chapters can be redirected to it; at this point that doesn't appear possible. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I now agree with your original delete, not this one. :-) The MCFR seems to be a proven hoax which has no relation to the CFR or the ACFR, real and notable organizations with plenty of refs, although only the first has an article here. As above, the MCFR, or any NYC committee is NOT on the complete list of all committees of the ACFR.John Z (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It appears that all the committees that are part of the American Committees on Foreign Relations have the same claim to be founded by the Council on Foreign Relations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 just to name a few!!  The Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations is no exception Here.  Additionally it could not use the name Committee on Foreign Relations without authorization from the ACFR Here.  I see know fraud on this entry, at worst it may simply need some editing!!!  • wikieraser 03:49, 9 December 2008
 * Where is the Manahttan committee mentioned in these links? -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t23:06z
 * The last link seems nonexistent, too.John Z (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of User:Wikieraser's external links have extra slashes at the end, if you remove them the links work, e.g. the last link should be . -- Jeandré, 2008-12-10t11:51z
 * Keep There is no problem with the viability of the American Committees on Foreign Relations and google turns up over 1,500 searches. Reference This Book on the ACFR, Here, Here, and These 34 Committee websites.  Additionally there are independent sources for each committee Reuters and North Florida Committee on Foreign Relations and Lastly this • wikieraser 04:15, 9 December 2008
 * Where is the Manahttan committee mentioned in these links?
 * Also, please don't change or delete other editors' votes and comments:, , . -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t23:06z
 * The Last post was about the American Committees on Foreign Policy NOT the Manhattan Committee. It was in reference to the earlier post about the ACFR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.140.14 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-09t23:27:23z, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.140.14 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-09t23:28:12z

This is getting too confused
This has gotten to be a complete mish-mash, so let me try to lay out the issues:


 * Is the Manhattan Committee independently notable? That is what it needs to have an article. My personal conclusion is that it is not. As I said, I could pull up nothing more than the most minimal signs of it.


 * Is it the same as the Council on Foreign Relations? This it clearly is not. It has a different website, different physical offices, and different officers. This is my biggest issue with the content of the current article: it is borrowing notability from the CFR through the use of a list of references, non of which mention the Manhattan Committee.


 * Is it part of the American Committees on Foreign Relations? That isn't entirely clear. I'm inclined to believe that the ACFR website has a mistake and that the Manhattan Committee is a chapter of the ACFR. Nevertheless, the problem then is that the ACFR doesn't have an article and is of questionable notability itself.

When all the unsourced and CFR-related material is removed from the article, the only thing left is the opening paragraph; and I think at this point that's all we can get. At that point, we don't have to answer the issues about the ACFR. The lack of independent notability is good enough reason to delete the article, or at best redirect it back to the parent organization. When push comes to shove, it is nothing more than a regional chapter of some larger organization. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2008 (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.