Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligence Squared

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Squared

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

Supported almost exclusively by primary sources, fails WP:CORP Flat Out (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that several events the organization has organized have received significant coverage. Examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], and more are available (e.g. Google News results). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete If 3rd party sources are paying attention to this group, then we keep it. If not, and that's what has happened so far, we don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a frivolous AfD submission. It's trivial --- the first response page of a Google News search --- to generate a long list of WP:RS references for this organization, which stages debates whose participants are themselves virtually all WP:NOT. The US version of Intelligence Squared is essentially an NPR version of CNN Crossfire. It's not an obscure organization by any stretch. This is not a good article --- it needs better sourcing and a lot of cleanup --- but its wholesale removal would be an embarrassment to the project. ~~former wp editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31DB:2010:490C:597F:1C80:44A3 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of filtering Google News down to the (large) subset of irrefutable sources, I tried an alternate tack of just searching for "Intelligence Squared" and "major news source". I only had to do it once: "Intelligence Squared" + "NYTimes" produces: [5]. This is a story about Intelligence Squared, twenty paragraphs long, that ran in the print edition of the NYTimes. ~~Speedy keep~~, admins. ~~ former wp editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31DB:2010:490C:597F:1C80:44A3 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one obvious. Le petit fromage (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per significant coverage. Nominator is reminded to read WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-For reasons listed above. This is a prominent debate staging organization with numerous highly publicized debates full of notable pundits from various fields. A quick google search turns up dozens of secondary sources. I think the nominator should attempt to fix the article by including those numerous secondary sources instead of nominating it for AfD.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 06:56, 12 June 2015 (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.