Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatestone Institute


 * 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. As for the possibility of a merge into Nina Rosenwald, since that target article has been created and changed significantly as this AFD has progressed, a separate merge discussion may be started to determine if that is a viable editorial path to take. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Gatestone Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The group isn't notable, as they lack any kind of significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the hits are their own publications, with a few trivial passing mentions in articles on other subjects. One of those even mentions that the group is little-known. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had considered deleting it initially when I found the article, and I've been too busy lately to follow up.  I haven't been able to find anything significant to sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge due to a lack of reliable secondary sourcing about GI; but The Nation suggests an article for Nina Rosenwald might work, with a sub-section for her think tank. Merge to Nina Rosenwald. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with Nina Rosenwald (I was planning on creating her article soon). Sadly, I'm afraid a lack of NPOV is behind the decision of some users currently favoring the deletion of this article. It clearly meets all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and so the fact that a sentence or two don't seem right, doesn't mean everything should be deleted. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The Wikipedia article does not mention, currently, many sources about Gatestone Institute and external to it. Howewer, it might change, this could be fixed (or not). About the lack of source, please notice that the think-tank was previously named "Stonegate Institute" and "Hudson New York Institute". Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Before I respond I must say just for the record that this user has been stalking me for a while now and has tried to irritate me and pretty much do the opposite of everything I say on Wikipedia. Like here and here for example, so I don't know if his opinion isn't biased. Secondly, regarding the claim that there are too many self-published sources for the article, I don't think it matters because the Gatestone Institute does have enough reliable coverage from other news networks. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where? You've repeatedly claimed that it's notable, but haven't bothered to provide any sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Shalom11111, you're describing WP:HOUNDING. Easy enough to prove using the Editor Interaction Analyzer. Ask for help from an admin or post to WP:ANI. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Green Cardamom I appreciate your comment, hounding is indeed a better term and thanks a lot for that editor interaction analyzer web tool. Roscelese, the sources can all be found it the article itself. Because I care enough about it I collected 10 of these reliable sources that support the article's notability - some mention the Gatestone Institute while some expand on it, others use it as a source, and more. Here: 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. It says in WP:BASIC that "A [Wikipedia article] is presumed to be notable if [it] has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Click here for a perfect example of one. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with the sources you have posted is that they are not reliable or independent, and/or that they do not provide the significant coverage that notability requires. If you are unsure of how our notability guidelines work, the Teahouse is designed to help new users. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that none of these 11 sources I listed is reliable, independent, or provides enough coverage? I actually do have quite some experience in English Wikipedia and am therefore surprised by and disagree with your claim Shalom11111 (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of those constitutes anything significantly reliable about the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. The Nation and others are reliable sources to discuss this topic. If you mean the coverage is trivial that's a different issue from reliability. But even brief mentions can be significant, such as a one sentence in The Nation that says the think tank is "little known" - only two words, but highly significant. The measure of significance is what information do we learn from the source, not how many words it contains. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well explained, I couldn't have said it better. Let me add to that another sentence quoted from the reliable National Review Online's article: "The Gatestone Institute is a remarkable resource, a fount of unnerving news and analysis of other-side-of-the-pond political correctness in the face of Muslim demands." In addition, of course, with over 5,000 likes on Facebook, the organization has been used as a main source for many articles by well known news networks/websites, some of which I put links for above. Again, I wouldn't mind creating the the page Nina Rosenwald and merging the article with it, but in my opinion doing so isn't the proper decision here. - Shalom11111 (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There are clearly sufficient secondary sources for its importance. &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is now sourced to The Nation, the Institute for Policy Studies Right Web, National Review, etc. Seconding DGG, that should be sufficient.  --72.66.30.115 (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - References to The Nation and National Review are trivial.  red dog six  (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A simple Google search learns that the GI is referred to in The Algemeiner, Le Matin (Morocco) , Libertad Digital and in the Jerusalem Post . And this is only the harvest of one month of news. Whatever you think of this instutute, it knows how to get international coverage. And thus, it is notable enough to have it's own article.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - These are trivial coverage. Three are very, very brief mentions - single line. and one is an article attributed to a member of the institute. These hardly support notability.  red dog six  (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Trivial? The Algemeiner is quoting extensively from the Institute, as does the Jerusalem Post. Only Le Matin quotes another site, which quotes the institute. Anyway. the Algemeiner mentioned the Gatestone Institute in a lot of articles (see, the JP refers to it in twelve: see . A search at Le Matin gives five results, including one that is IMHO non-trivial: it even calls it un think tank américain de renommée internationale spécialisé dans les questions stratégiques et de défense (see .) Although this praise might be a bit exaggerating its status, it certainly shows that, like I said, it is notable enough to have it's own article. Regards Jeff5102 (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – No rational argument for deletion: Wikipedia is loaded with organization's that are barely referenced through online searches. Claiming that The Nation and National Review is "trivial" reveals a bias against the organization as well as right-leaning sources. Is anyone really going to claim the organization is lying about John R. Bolton or Elie Wiesel affiliation with the group? That alone merits the organization's notability for a Wikipedia page. The conversation should be about improving the page, not "deletion." I will continue to improve the page and welcome others to join me. But ruining the hard work of writers because you may not like the organizations work goes against everything Wikipedia is about. Hawkswin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkswin (talk • contribs)


 * Please read WP:FAITH. You ask for a collaborative working atmosphere, but then assume bad faith by accusing people having an ideological agenda to delete the article. Wikipedia does not work in that negative atmosphere of finger pointing. There is no evidence anyone here is voting for delete other than based on a rules-basis. It does the article no favors by assuming bad faith in others. Also while Elie Wiesel affiliation is reason to look more closely for notability, association of famous people does not make an organization notable (per the rules). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hawkswin, apart from what Green Cardamom already said: a ) if you vote, please write down the word "Keep" or "Delete" in bold;b ) sign your post with four tildes (~) to make your vote visible on the statistics-page. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, in addition no one said the The Nation or National Review are trivial, only the references that used them. Wikipedia may be "loaded" with non-notable organizations, but that is not a reason to keep this one.  Feel free to nominate those for deletion. Additionally, an affiliation with someone that is considered as notable by Wikipedia is not a valid reason to establish notability. Notability is not inherited. If this were the case every waiter in Hollywood would have a page. (Before anyone decides that I am comparing the article in question to a waiter, no, this is only an attempt at humor.)    red dog six  (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - even though the final decision will be probably be "keep", I see no reason to relist this deletion entry. At first there were some speculations about the notability of and coverage on the Gatestone Institute, but as the article progressed and comments here proved, there's nearly no doubt about it anymore. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree mostly with Yamabaram. The main argument for deletion was the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The users on the 'keep'-side provided several links to articles in which the institute was mentioned. The only question that an administrator had to answer was: do the given links show that the coverage is significant or trivial? It might not be the easiest question to answer. Still, I cannot see what good this further discussion can do. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. An article on Nina Rosenwald exists now, so I imagine everyone would be satisfied with a redirect or merge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No.The reasons behind this ‘no’ are:
 * The Institute article has improved significantly. The problem of the lack of sources (which was the argument to merge or delete it)  is solved, and thus the need to merge it is gone.
 * The Gatestone Institute is more notable than Ms. Rosenwald. It got a) more google hits, b)  more third party coverage, and c) more articles on wikipedia link to it.  Furthermore, there are more people involved to the institute than just Ms. Rosenwald.
 * Thus, the Gatestone Institute cannot be seen as “just a part of Nina Rosenwald’s life.” And since Rosenwald has done more things in her life than founding an institute, she cannot be seen as “just the founder of an Institute.”
 * And all that makes me decide to vote against a merge. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the added sources are trivial and/or unreliable, and you've been here long enough that you should know better than to cite GOOGLEHITS (especially since I specifically addressed that earlier). A merge or redirect has the benefit of keeping the title, for those users who want to be able to search on it or link to it, while also being compliant with our notability policies. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Roscelese, sofar, I was the only one (at 24 September) in this discussion to use the term "google," so don't claim you've explained it all here. And the argument in this case was not it got excessive hits, so we must keep it, as what WP:GOOGLEHITS is about. The argument was the search-term "Gatestone Institute" returned more hits than "Nina Rosenwald." In fact, the Institute returned 135,000 results, while Rosenwald only returned 18,500. And then I don't know if there are any other Nina Rosenwalds out there. THis leads me to the conclusion that we should not redirect a page to a page who got only 15% of the coverage of the original article. Moreover, you never explained what is wrong with "Le Matin"-newspaper. Why is their praise unreliable and/or trivial?Jeff5102 (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably borderline in terms of significance, but one piece couldn't support an article even if it were clearly significant. We have standards for how much coverage shows notability. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to merge with anything else—Gatestone and Nina Rosenwald are notable in their own right. Jeff explains it well.  --72.66.30.115 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep And please excuse my confusion.  I got here after googling Gatestone and clicking the Wikipedia entry.   I was googling after seeing information cited to Gatestone here:   The Wikipedia told me pretty much what I wanted to know, who works for them, where they stand politically...  Wikipedia regularly, albeit not perfectly, does that.  I also like that it facilitates verification.   I clicked on links to The Nation, and National Review.  Which is when I also clicked on the box at the top of the Gatestone Wikipedia page and got here, to this page.  Permit me to share my perplexity.  This is a useful article about a new think tank/policy institute/online magazine publishing authors many of whom  are independently notable.  This is the sort of question that most of us rely on Wikipedia to answer.  Why on earth do you want to delete this article?  And what sense would it make to "merge" it into an article on one of the funders?AnonymousW.user (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your positive comments about the article, AnonymousW. It's still growing; we haven't even added Geert Wilders yet!  You ask: "Why on earth do you want to delete this article?"  I would answer your question but I might be punished for attacking my fellow editors (which I've been recently warned not to do).  --72.66.30.115 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to merge. The previous contributors make an excellent case, especially AnonymousW. I believe that it is already at a stage that its notability has been confirmed and it merging would be a disservice to the writers and public, but for those still unsure, please take into account the point made by 72.66.30.115 that the article is still growing and with multiple contributors interested in this page, I think it is safe to say that sooner rather than later, your reservations should be negated.Hawkswin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkswin (talk • contribs) 15:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Seems to squeak through WP:NONPROFIT. But man does it need a cleanup! Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I must say there was only one editor, other the the user who nominated the article for deletion, who said 'delete' in this entire discussion (excluding all "weak delete/merge" responses). And that was in the very beginning, now there sure is a general consensus about it. Earlier I said the article should be merged with Nina Rosenwald before her full well written article was un-deleted, and I take it back now, in fact even the other way around isn't a logical solution here. These two articles are more notable and have more coverage than at least a quarter of English Wikipedia's 4 million articles - keep them as is and leave them alone!;) Shalom11111 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Nina Rosenwald. I looked and looked for even one third-party source discussing the founding of the think tank, or a detailed discussion of its positions. There is nothing but one liners out there, trivial mentions of the group in relation to something else. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2013 (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.