Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Legislative Analysis (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Institute for Legislative Analysis
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No change since the last AfD, coverage does not meet WP:ORGCRITE--the article's creator should have challenged the close by requesting that it be relisted, but instead went straight to RFUD. The additional sources linked in the discussion which they claim demonstrate notability do not include in-depth independent coverage of the organization that would satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. signed,Rosguill talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics,  and Washington, D.C.. signed,Rosguill talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A review of the log over the last week shows I have made a number of attempts to address the concerns you raised. Additionally, I just added a piece on ILA's data (written 3 hours ago) by Fox News' Deroy Murdock on DailySignal (the platform of the largest conservative thinktank in the world). Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/24/democrats-not-republicans-are-capitol-hills-true-extremists/ Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete After looking through the sources, this article fails WP:NORG. Needs more articles directly on the org itself - the article linked here is not at all significant coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Please note the extensive write ups on the organization by both Fox News and state outlets:
 * https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-conservative-group-grades-lawmakers-limited-government-principles-see-where-yours-stands. https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html
 * Additionally, please note the utilization of the ILA by the Nikki Haley campaign and the fact the organization's CEO was named by the Washingtonian as one of the Top 500 most influential in nation on policy due to the impact of their reports. I believe all of those factors coupled with the significant number of mentions by Members of Congress confirm the ILA meets WP:NORG. I closely follow right-of-center political non-profits and can confirm the ILA's media coverage and influence far exceeds many of the other organizations with pages on Wikipedia. Finally, I will note that the ILA is only a little over a year old and clearly an up and coming organization if you do research into what it has done so far. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say the Gillette News-Record article might be borderline (though, being mostly quotes means that it wouldn't be secondary even though it's independent, and all four criteria have to be met by the same source). Being an up and coming organization is a clear indication that it is likely simply too soon to have an article on it, the criteria would normally only after they are already successful or prominent, not (i.e. § Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time). The Fox article does not clearly meet ORGIND, and even if we were to make an exception on the general consensus on think tanks in this case, the Daily Signal article is clearly WP:RSOPINION and therefore not considered reliable for statements of fact.
 * I would if you do wish to continue working on an article about this organisation, that you do so as a draft, and not move it to mainspace without review by the Articles for creation process. While closely following  such organisations would probably help you develop an article, I don't believe your evaluation of the sources accurately reflect the standards they are assessed on. As for the other organisations for which coverage on this one far exceeds, I would say they most likely would be deleted if they cannot be brought to standard, but most such articles are not reviewed regularly (after all, we have 6 million of them, that would take some time). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete The notability bar for companies and organisations is deliberately set high. I'm not seeing "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The article about Wyoming legislators criticising a report from the organisation is not sufficient and not "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." as required. Per WP:SIRS, part of WP:NCORP, "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability." AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – Reviewed sources and feedback from discussion. It appears general consensus is Fox News and Gillette News Record pieces are borderline, but technically meet WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. I concur Daily Signal fails WP:ORGIND. Would like to see additional sources but believe enough to scrape by. Tremendous amount of attention provided to the org even if not necessarily primary WP source material is what I believe puts it over top. In just past 24 hours the org has been referenced by over dozen plus members of congress (press releases, socials, etc.) – clearly a very notable org. If this was an old/inactive org that's one thing, but WP has been more lenient to nonprofits. SamwiseTarly (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note to closer SamwiseTarly has acknowledged that they are associated with the subject of this article; as such they have a conflict of interest with regard to this subject. I have given them a link to the appropriate guidance. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ok, well thanks for pointing out that social media stuff. Did more research as I just could not understand why/how the ILA could have this level of influence and following among so many members of congress and not also have a whole ton of other articles in its operation. Well, it turns out ILA is the affiliate of the Conservative Partnership Institute (a policy and research arm). That is why most of the press on ILA is primarily targeted to the studies and the findings. Anyhow, now have a number of other major sources like New York Times and Guardian to cite which should hopefully now finally solve any of the concerns folks have previously had. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/us/politics/trump-conservative-partnership-institute.html Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ... The NYT article does not even mention ILA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * - I've struck through your bolded 'keep' above - you have already cast a !vote, you can't cast another one. You are permitted to make general comments, but no more bolded 'keeps' please. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a pass of ORGIND. If that isn't sufficiently clear, then an AfC review is required. Delete, and strongly advise against recreation without review. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:26, 31 May 2024 (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.