- 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. SoWhy 17:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Harvard International Relations Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources are self-published, not relevant, or by niche blogs: fails WP:ORG Colestefan (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. Foreign Policy magazine say Harvard is the best place to study foreign relations(#1 on list of 10), specifically mentioning the HIRC [1] Rhadow (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable. I agree with Rhadow. Just because the sources are bad does not make the page irrelevant. Someone just needs to put in the work to update them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.232.67 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Rhadow. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:34, 11 August 2017 (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.