Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael


 * 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article seems to be based on self-promotion by think-tank. Shtove (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't find much significant coverage information about the organization from independent sources. There's, and it is probably independent, but it still feels promotional. It also seems routine; the source describes itself as a portal to find content on organizations based in the Hague that promote international peace and justice. That doesn't seem like a very selective list. And even that source says Clingendael has only about 60 employees. Everything else online has similar issues. It's all either routine or affiliated, sometimes both. The organization seems competent and is probably a reliable source on international justice issues, but as for itself being notable, it seems WP:TOOSOON.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not this WP:TOOSOON really applies here. The Institute was created in 1982. 05:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Lean Keep I'll admit my bias upfront, I studied at Clingendael with an outside organization in 2013. That being said, this article needs work (especially reliable sources). I would argue that as a IR think-tank with (if I remember correctly) arms-length government connection, it is notable. I'll see what I can do to bolster the current article. Bkissin (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bkissin has greatly improved the article, but I'm not convinced the references establish notability or that they aren't the fruit of self-promotion (no criticism of Bkissin). If not to be deleted, it is a candidate for inclusion on a long list of think-tanks that enjoy the benefit of state-funding. Why don't governments just directly publish their own propaganda? shtove
 * Comment I think you might have meant this to be a comment rather than a second vote to delete. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Coverage such as this and this leads me to believe the organization easily meets WP:N. Other governments have touted visits indicating its international importance (WP:NGO). Perhaps people would have more luck finding substantial coverage by searching for Instituut Clingendael in Dutch. Arch-i-tec-sure (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2019 (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.