Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Iclif Leadership and Governance Centre

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Iclif Leadership and Governance Centre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite its good intentions and founding principles, there is nothing here, or in searches, that suggest that this organisation is notable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's a fair supply of general sources, with ICLIF showing up quite a lot in regional news, as well as some more specifically related to their CEO and thus ICLIF's "ideology" (I've excluded those, but he writes in Forbes frequently). They are of variable, but decent, quality. They have covered some areas tagged as unsupported fairly well while leaving others absent. ~~I'm unsure where they leave the article as a whole in terms of WP:GNG~~ Nosebagbear (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Edge Weekly", "The Star", "Hindu Business Line", Strategy + Business (most directly relevant to ICLIF CEO/ideology, less about structure), "Sunday Observer". Nosebagbear (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The text reads like promotional WP:FANCRUFT. -The Gnome (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is cruft, and needs heavy pruning to be nonpromotional. But there are just enough RS listed that are *about* Iclif to meet the GNG bar. (There are also articles in the sources which are passing mentions, references which are about people who happen to be affiliated with Iclif, and some sources where I suspect whether they are truly unbiased and independent - but still enough to go by.) Martinp (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
N.b./Query - Just wanted to note a decision from neutral to weak keep above - I'm never quite sure how to handle this situation with relists severing from earlier comment. If that counts as a comment, let me know - I'll revert and respost. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - just barely enough info in the sources, but heavy culling is required. Here are other sources [[1]] [[2]] and I see some coverage of their thought leadership events, with notable sponsors. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while notability is not inherited, I did see that Jimmy Wales spoke at one of their events. It was in the info I just culled. Here's a video FYI. [[3]]TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.