Institute for Political and Legal Education: The reference is dated 1995.   This is the reference that I can find to IPLE.   That suggests it was not widely used.   On that basis, I suggest this page is deleted.  Newhaven lad ( talk ) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law , Organizations , Politics , Education , United States of America ,  and New Jersey .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements.  I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization.  Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics.  Below are a few sources to consider: Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013).  Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works .  Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services.  Springer US.  ISBN 978-1-4899-0390-7 .  Retrieved April 22, 2024 .  Park, J.S.; United States.  Office of Education (1978).  Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work .  DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018.  U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education .  Retrieved April 22, 2024 .  United States.  Office of Education (1974).  Innovative Education Practices: 1974 .  Innovative Education Practices.  The Office .  Retrieved April 22, 2024 .  – North America 1000 16:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar.  [1] , for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer.  There are a lot of other sources.  James500 ( talk ) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Changing from my earlier ! vote of delete per WP:HEY .  Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA.  Aaron Liu ( talk ) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak and reluctant keep.  While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information.  If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information.  My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  20:22, 29 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep