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.  Sandstein  05:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partners for Democratic Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Isn't a chicken, but it tastes like chicken. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am also nominating Partners for Democratic Change International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion as part of this. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPAM. This reads like an ad. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix and keep. My concern has been addressed through Ikanreed (talk · contribs)'s mending of the article. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix and keep. While the article quality is extremely low, using the source searches above, it's quite clear that there are a number of secondary sources that establish notability for the organization, with the most written about work being from the early 2000s.

1. Several news articles discussing particular efforts made by the partners for democratic change over a wide range of years, such as [1], and [2]
2. Several academic papers written in the area of international policy and diplomacy discussing work by the organization too, 2 of these require subscriptions so only google's summaries tell me anything about their relationship but, [3], [4], and [5] as fairly certain examples.
3. At least one published book exclusively about the subject: [6].

• I think it's fairly clear that notability can be established here through reliable 3rd party sources, without any recentism bias. The only problem is the quality of the article as it stands is unacceptably low. i kan reed (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I've done some basic work finding reliable references for some of the more basic claims made in the article, along with adding an infobox. I left the empty sections alone under the assumption that the original author was still working on the article. i kan reed (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2011 (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.