Deletion of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East

Comment: Certainly does not pass our |general notability guideline. The sources, including the ones Shrike is trying to pass off as in-depth coverage, are just as Jytdog described them -- name-dropping. Wikipedia is |not meant to be used as an advertising mechanism for an organization hence another reason why deletion is appropriate
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOT)

Comment: There is currently significant community concern from several long-serving editors in good-standing about the conduct of E.M.Gregory at AfDs. This relates to misleading and dishonest use of sources to convey a false sense of notability. This conduct is being repeated by other editors above - posting raw search results and links to directory entries (yes, directory entries). Another editor has argued "Any organisation with chapters at Stanford University...is by definition, notable" an argument that is directly in contravention of  which says "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is" Please remember it is the policy-based consensus arguments that matter, not the loudest advovates who treat Wikipedia as a |battleground for their |pov-pushing. Quality vs quantity
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGSIG||WP:BATTLEGROUND||WP:POVPUSH)

Comment: This is a poorly-sourced promotional article. It fails  - namely it has not "been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The sources provided are either not independent or very trivial mentions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGDEPTH)

Comment: Found some sources.Meet  https://books.google.com/books?id=XZPPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA233 https://books.google.com/books?id=nHXmJelqo6QC&pg=PA16
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)