Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transnational organization


 * 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, with sections deleted under G4. Selective deletion with a revision to the stub status incoming. The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Transnational organization

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

While I'm not an admin so I can't check for myself, I'd be willing to bet the greater part of this article, which compares the Muslim Brotherhood with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, duplicates the article by the same author deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Muslim Brotherhood and the CPSU: Architecture and Functions. Although it purports to be an article on 'transnational organizations' more generally, this article seems to suffer from the same problems as that one: it's an elaborate piece of original synthesis. The sources given don't actually describe the Muslim Brotherhood and the CPSU as 'transnational organizations', nor do they compare them with one another. The comparison is entirely the work of the author.

I would suggest reducing this article to the stub it was before User:Dagnytaggartmoxie came along, but I'm not even convinced 'transnational organization' is even a notable term. A better solution would be to delete it and replace it with a redirect to International organization. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV-driven original research. Carrite (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will add that I have never seen the CPSU referred to as a "transnational organization" in the scholarly literature. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Carrite.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs to be edited but there is a sound basis for the article in the literature. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this stub. The term appears in scholarly literature and needs a proper treatment. I have no opinion on whether the current expanded version is sound; it may be that we need to revert back to the stub version. But the topic is encyclopedic (if a bit esoteric, and if I personally think it is a lot of hot air blowing by some people who were not happy with the term international organization, for no good reason I can discern ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep An international organization implies formal, recognized structure, while a transnational organization can also be an underground criminal network. rwityk (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2012
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Concur with Jason from nyc and Piotrus. "Transnational organization" is a scholarly term found in literature. Further, while citing the Center for Security Policy is dubious, most of the articles cited possess primary sources and evidence found in policing operations. FOUO (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Although the OR/POV comparison of the CPSU and Muslim Brotherhood is inappropriate, a look at the article's history indicates this isn't fundamentally an attack page. Google Scholar demonstrates scholarly usage, though the lack of JSTOR sources makes me think this is a neologism. I think the distinction from an international organization is pretty tenuous, but that's just an opinion. Overhaul and remove attack material, but don't delete. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.1.215 (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Revert to Piotrus's stub and revision delete contributions after 's expansion to the article per CRD5/CSDG4, with merging with international organisation to be decided at a later date; both editors are correct in that this is a recreation of a POV essay deleted at AfD which hijacked an earlier revision of the article. Sceptre (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and revert per Sceptre, and I agree with him that some of the earlier versions are suitable for revdel as slander. There is appropriate content possible for this article. Better there be a decent article here than no article.  DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and revert per Piotrus, Sceptre, and DGG. This is a decent stub that was hijacked to make a point. --GRuban (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2012 (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.