Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearson Commission on International Development


 * 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. Consensus is that the topic passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by CT55555. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Pearson Commission on International Development

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

Not sure if this warrants a standalone article. The two relevant sentences and a few additional details can be incorporated into World_Bank Mooonswimmer 15:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Agree per nom that there is little on offer here, best redirected to World Bank article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It is a notable topic and there a high volume of independent, reliable, significant coverage about it:
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09592296.2015.999626
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002070208003500401?journalCode=ijxa
 * https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/11123/IDSB_2_2_10.1111-j.1759-5436.1969.mp2002002.x.pdf?sequence=1
 * De Haan, Arjan. How the aid industry works: an introduction to international development. Kumarian Press, 2009.
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00220387208421406
 * It is notable how easy it was to establish this by doing a search of the article's title in google scholar, part of the required process that should precede nominating an article for deletion, see WP:BEFORE CT55555 (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per CT55555 and the sources found. Although it is not clear whether #3 is reliably published and #5 is by Pearson so does not count for WP:N.  That still leaves three good sources. SpinningSpark 12:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3 was written in 1969, by Frank Judd, Baron Judd the former Minister for Overseas Development of the UK. It was published by Pall Mall press, which operated from 1905 to 2017. I would consider that a reliable author and a reliable source.
 * 5 is published in a journal and written by P. T. Bauer and B. S. Yamey, I see no reason to think they are anything but independent reliable sources CT55555 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of CT55555's sources above, I've reviewed nos. 1, 2, and 5, and I'm satisfied that they are all reliable and independent and that they provide the Commission with significant coverage. (#5 isn't by Pearson: it's a 2010 review of the report written by someone with no apparent connection to Pearson et al.) I wouldn't support a merge/redirect because, judging from the sources provided, there's more to say about the Commission than would be due in a broad-scope article like World Bank. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:06, 21 June 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.