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. Merge can be discussed on talk page if you still want to pursue that; otherwise, consensus is that it meets GNG. ansh666 00:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Powers Initiative (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)

Tagged with ((COI))* for over ten years. Perhaps, if no-one has cleaned it up in all that time, we should to admit no one cares enough to have this on Wikipedia?

* Although for all that time, without the required statement of the supposed on-neutrality on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Global Security Institute. Contributor apathy isn't a reason for deletion, but I don't see significant independent coverage of the group or its actions (this interview is the best I found). The Google News search results are largely situations where it is used as a resume-filler. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Improve - This search returns a lot of different pages which I only skimmed.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Apathy is not grounds for deletion. (WP:WHOCARES) Seems to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to pass GNG in my BEFORE. Fairly stubby as it is - cleaning up the COI tag shouldn't be too difficult, and while somewhat promotional it isn't egregiously so.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 13 February 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.