Talk:Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies

Compromise
I'll compromise. I'll give it 2 more days, and if the article hasn't proven notability, and if it isn't written in neutral language, I'm putting it on AFD. GreenJoe 20:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. It would be more helpful, and more constructive, if you were to point to what you see as the problems of a) notability and b) neutral language.  Obviously, you can edit it yourself, too.  I personally don't see problems with either, but I am open to persuasion.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. It's not written in a neutral tone. 2. It reads like an ad, and it uses peacock terms such as "distinguished professorship". 3. Program section - Wikipedia isn't a directory. 4. Fails to establish notability. GreenJoe 20:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Distinguished professorship," the only concrete example you've given of problematic language, is not a "peacock term," but rather an official (and rather common) designation for an academic post. See Distinguished Professor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As for your other issues: 1. It is indeed written in a neutral tone; any non-neutral statements are clearly indicated as coming from third-party sources; 2. It does not read like an ad; 3. The "program" section merely describes what the institute does; 4. notability is fully established. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NB I don't expect the article to expand particularly beyond the current state. I think it would be hard for it to do so without it becoming patently promotional. As it is, I'm sure it would comfortably survive an AfD. In the meantime, I remain baffled by your comment about "neutral language," and await your pointing out the specific sentences or phrases you find problematic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks to a CAD$15 million donation three years earlier from the Vancouver property developer, Peter Wall (Vancouver's "ultimate business maverick",[2] whose company built One Wall Centre, the city's tallest completed building); at the time, this was the largest private donation the university had ever received.[3] is promotional and sensationalistic pr-speak. The intent was to create an institute of advanced study modelled on Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study. Then UBC President, David Strangway, was quoted as saying "This remarkable contribution will allow us to create an institute that will help UBC and the province of British Columbia move to a new level of international significance".[4] is empty words, with nothing meaningful for the reader. International significance in what, bragging? There are lots of tall buildings and academic orgs in the world (there must be half a dozen of the latter within a 10 minute walk of where I live). What's notable about this one? Please understand, the article was speeded for lack of an assertion of significance. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, this isn't the language I'd use myself, but it's what's in the sources, which are press articles. That's how Wikipedia works!  (Though I did add the "ultimate business maverick" because it was funny; I'm thinking of adding an article on Wall himself, who sounds quite a character.  Then I can no doubt delete that quotation.)  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, the irony is that if it were not so well sourced, the article would indeed sound less promotional. We could say something like "the university made a song and dance about the donation in 1991, because it was the largest they had received to date."  But that, though true, would be WP:OR.  For better or for worse, our standard is verifiability, not truth!  But with the sources, readers can at least make up their own minds.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, why wait two days? Take it to AfD right now, if you want. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "the university made a song and dance about the donation in 1991, because it was the largest they had received to date." That's how it's done :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. In some ways I would love to put that, believe me!  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ;) I dare not say what I'm thinking. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)