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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Middle East Understanding[edit]

Institute for Middle East Understanding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails to meet WP:ORG. While being quoted by many news outlets, the IMEU has not been the subject of coverage in any reliable, independent secondary source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It does meet WP:ORG: it has coverage in WP:RS [1]. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Littleteddy. Also WP:Point, I think this AfD seems to be a bit of spillover from hummus and related food articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you both joking or what? The referenced nigelparry site is the web designer of the IMEU web site. It does not attest to its reliability (nor is IMEU a reliable source, speaking of hummus) or its notability. It is not a notable web site; no one has ever wrote about IMEU (either positive or negative reviews). Well, no one except for its web designer. -- Gabi S. (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a website, it is about the organization. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While their coverage is light and the org is only a couple of years old, this unscientific Google text string search hints that their press releases do get some coverage by many third-party outlets. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not make them notable. Wikipedia policies are clear: the site should be the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Not "quoted by many sites with similar agenda".

• Keep As this organisation is used as a source in several Wikipedia articles, it is valuable to include information on the organisation itself so that users know where it is coming from. With the link now added to its beliefs page, it is clear that this is a pro-Palestinian organisation, but not an "extremist" one as claimed elsewhere in Wikipedia talk pages.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it were an "extremist" site it could have its own article, as Al-Manar, for example, does - because Al-Manar was the subject of numerous articles on CNN and elsewhere, thus it's notable. IMEU are just not notable.
  • Comment: If this organization is used as a source in other Wikipedia articles, it doesn't make it notable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a small organization, but that doesn't preclude it having a Wikipedia entry, per WP:ORG. It's mentioned in this journal as a good resource on Palestine. There is some information about the organization's founder, Lena Khalaf Tuffaha in this article by the ADL, specifically on her praise for Jimmy Carter's book Peace Not Apartheid. It's also listed in the 2008 Arab-American Media Directory, attesting to its importance to the Arab-American community. It was founded in 2005, and received a grant from the Jerusalem Fund in 2006 to highlight the accomplishments of Palestinian-Americans in the arts. literature, academia, community service, etc.. In short, I think there is enough coverage and information to put together a decent entry for the organization. No doubt as time goes on, more and more people will be looking for information on the organization and its background. I see no reason to delete the entry, though it definitely should be expanded and improved using some of the sources provided here, among others that can certainly be located. Tiamut^talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another bad joke. The Borderlands Journal quote is negligible, and the 2008 Arab American Media Directory includes 76 pages full of institutes and web sites, in which IMEU is a drop in the sea. Not notable. -- Gabi S. (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - all the sources presented until now are very weak proofs of notability. I tried googling for more, and found this: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article8980.shtml - a review of a book written by someone from this institute. Apparently both the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and the author John Mearsheimer have articles, and appear eligible. Does it make his current employer notable? I'm not so sure. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is indeed covered in independent sources. // Liftarn (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspeak is fun. It is not covered by any reliable, independent secondary source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:ORG per Littleteddy and Tiamut. --MPerel 06:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspeak is fun indeed. It does not meet WP:ORG. -- Gabi S. (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm wondering if those suggesting it meets WP:ORG actually looked at the sources used to establish notability. Littleteddy has offered up Nigleperry.net , which is not a WP:RS, and is not independent of the article's subject - being merely a listing of the web sites designed by the source. Another source - is a blog, again not WP:RS. Tiamut's and Amir E. Aharoni's sources where founder Lena Khalaf Tuffaha is mentioned may be used to establish her notability, but as numerous editors have pointed out, notability is not transferable - the founder may be notable while the organization is not. Sources that merely replicate an organizations press release are similarly not an indication of notability. I have yet to see even a single mention that would meet the requirements of WP:ORG Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article, written well and according to our policies is obviously a positive addition to the encyclopedia. That's the only reason we should have anything at all at Wikipedia. Littleteddy, Tiamut et al have done some work establishing its satisfaction of some guidelines. For another cite, it was the "non-profit spotlight" for the week of July 10, 2007 at The CulturalConnect Mideast emagazine.[2]John Z (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (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.