Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the Council 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   keep. no one aside the nom seems to support deletion JForget  21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Based on primary sources. For information that can be sourced from third-party reliable sources the main article can be used. I understand that this is a summary style "child" article, but given the recent talk page request from an employee this page is being treated like a directory (WP:NOT, #7) --Commander Keane (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Okay, first off, we're all agreed that the Council on Foreign Relations is six miles (about 10 kilometers) over the notability bar, correct? There is already a vast membership list at Council on Foreign Relations and has been for years, also correct? Why would there be the slightest objection to breaking out the membership roster as a stand-alone list? I suppose one could make the argument that it is a potential content fork, but that seems a weak complaint, since the latter is explicitly a list and there is no "content," per se... I'm just really not following the basis for the complaint here. There is no prohibition against using primary sources at Wikipedia, only a requirement that they must be "used carefully". So this leaves us with, what exactly? A keep or a speedy keep... Carrite (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment - In anticipation that there will be complaint made over my statement about primary sources, here is the latest ruling on the matter by ArbCom in their recent Race & Intelligence decision: "3.1) Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Passed 9 to 0, 22:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. List of notable members of a notable organization. The list itself is a bit too long for the main article, so it makes sense to keep this list as a separate article and just leave the current Board Members listed at the CoFR article. Otherwise, the main article just becomes too unwieldy. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep -- Clearly worthy of an article. Probably even more so than List of Batman supporting characters. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Question: how is the "some" in "Some corporate members" defined?--Commander Keane (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2010 (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.