Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civitatis International (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Nakon 01:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Civitatis International
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This company appears to have very little notability. There is a single source provided only, and the scope of the article is almost entirely about a single incident, which isn't even a very notable incident. In my opinion, this article contributes very little to the encyclopaedic value of Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - As before, despite the government link and this one event this company does not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * keep As for the previous AfD, they've been covered by both the Grauniad and HuffPost in relation to the intern issue. Also they seem to be taken seriously by the UK government, in that they're invited to provide written submissions to select committees: Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This argument was given before and I still don't understand how being able to submit anything to a government makes a company notable for Wikipedia. Can you please elaborate on how you have come to this conclusion? - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the UK government has asked for either my advice, nor yours. They have however seen fit to ask Civitatis for theirs. That suggests that the UK government (something of an authority on whether particular think tanks are seen as significant) consider them as notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * it is my understanding that in the UK, anyone in the public can submit "evidence" (use of that term is not how we use it in the US) - at certain points in the life of a bill -- see  The fact that CIvitas submitted evidence doesn't mean that the committee (not the whole parliament) asked for it.   The committee may or may not decide to publish "evidence". It is true that the committee did decide to publish the evidence from Civitas (I have no idea how indiscriminate they are in practice - if they publish everything, everything with a shred of credibiliy, or are really selective).  As near as I can see this UK process is kind of parallel to the "comment period" in the US Rulemaking process - where there is a clear period of public commentary built in.  Anyway, to me that Civitas submission is pretty much like a letter to the editor or an op-ed piece by Civitas.  Doesn't show notability to me.  And there are no third party sources showing that their "evidence" mattered to anybody.... (or that Civitas matters to anybody, other than how they treat their interns) Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * delete per WP:NOTNEWS - no significant coverage in third party sources. even the incident that brought the first blip of news has dropped from the press coverage as being not worthy of any follow up. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (edit conflict) Not notable, fails WP:ORG. I was in the process of nominating it myself when Joseph beat me to it. There has been edit warring between two versions of the article: an extended puffery piece full of unreferenced spam, and the current version which consists almost entirely of a negative news story about the organization. That one incident appears to be the only subject on which the organization gained any Reliable Source coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does adding puffery become a reason to delete?  Yes, that section was unsourced and overblown. However that's what we're here to fix by editing and by adding sources, not by deleting articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It becomes an issue in cases like this-cases when you remove the puffery that there is nothing left. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can find Reliable Sources to support the extended version, please add them and I might change my !vote. In my own search, I couldn't find any. --MelanieN (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @RedPen - no it doesn't. WP:Notability is objective (or as near as we can get) and deliberately independent of WP coverage. Topics are notable or not whether they have WP articles about them. Your regular tactic (and you know full well that I despise your editing style) is to prune an article that you have a grievance with down until it no longer demonstrates notability and then hope to trap other editors in believing the fallacy that you have now somehow removed notability from a topic.
 * It would be optimistic to hope that a better editor might have time and inclination to study what's out there about Civitatis and see if they really do have a WP:Notable footprint for which we can find sources. The sad part is that your lynch mob attitude, attacking the article expanders as socks before you ever look at the topic they're working on, easily gains so many followers. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed I do "prune" from articles content that does not meet the policies and guidelines of of WP:V / WP:OR / WP:RS / WP:NPOV and quite frequently what one is left with is a subject that obviously does not meet WP:GNG. It is then incumbent upon those who think the subject meets the Wikipedia criteria to actually supply appropriate sources that validate a WP:GNG threshold. I will stand by those "tactics" as methodology that clearly helps improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable. Doesn't get past WP:ORG and no evidence of significant third party coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete:not notable based on sources provided, and I looked for more and found none. Fails WP:ORG Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even sure why we have an article on this company; completely fails WP:CORP and is wholly negative. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete One trick pony. Google News only has a few articles related to the charging-interns-for-job-references "scandal". There is no real coverage of what the company is or what it does that makes it notable. It's quite possible that the same whistleblowers who had enough of a beef with the organization to report them to the press are attempting to further disrepute the organization.  (And yes, I just used disrepute as a verb for fun.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.