Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Social Policy and Understanding


 * 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. Consensus is that the available sources don't cover the subject in enough depth to satisfy the notability requirements.  Hut 8.5  21:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Institute for Social Policy and Understanding

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe the reason given in the removed PROD is valid: "No references except its own web site. No evidence of notability. Promotional posting." Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The organization comports to standards of notability for organizations and companies as its research has been cited in reliable, independent, third-party sources:
 * "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)."


 * These sources include mainstream news media,          which are considered "reliable sources", and thus comport to Wikipedia's standards of establishing notability beyond "trivial sources." Depth of coverage standards are also met as the organization has been referenced in "multiple independent sources." Finelinebilly (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've reviewed the sources given here and on the article talk page, and from what I see they tend to just name-drop this organization's name, or maybe quote a representative of it, without saying how this organization is notable as an organization. If they have conduced accepted research and/or studies, that's not clear from the sources I have seen. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Here are some select quotations from the independent, third party, reliable sources that cite the organization's research and studies:


 * "The Institute of Social Policy and Understanding, a research group that studies various aspects of Muslim American life, found that at least 128 anti-Sharia law or anti-foreign law bills have been introduced since 2011."(Buzzfeed News)


 * "Surveys by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and the Pew Research Center suggest that the attitudes of United States Muslims about country and community are similar to those of adherents of other religions." (New York Times)


 * "As a result, according to one poll taken in January of 2016, Muslim support for Clinton is higher than among any other religious group measured. The poll, taken by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a research group focusing on American Muslims, showed that 40 percent of Muslims supported Clinton, compared to 30 percent of Jews and 13 percent of Catholics and Protestants."Five Thirty Eight


 * "According to the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a think tank that focuses on the American Muslim community, the number of Muslims registered to vote lags behind other faith traditions as well as the general population." (Chicago Tribune)


 * "The event — Islamophobia: Politics, Priorities and Prejudice in 2016 — was organized by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a nonprofit founded in 2002 that conducts research aimed at empowering American Muslims to increase community involvement and participation in democracy in the United States." (Michigan Daily) Finelinebilly (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The references just seem to be in passing. "Here's a story about a big event. Mr. such-and-such, from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding says...", and thats it. There needs to be sources that talk about the group itself, not just quotes from news articles from its members. ValarianB (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete @ValarianB please see the above 5 quotes in which news media describe the organization before citing their research. This research institution has been conducting research for over 15 years. Like any other legitimate research institute, notable news media report on their research and other users have demonstrated this is the case above. Furthermore, as the user posted above, this organization's news coverage meets the "depth of coverage" guidelines in that the organization has been referenced in "multiple independent sources." This page needs to stay. Thes0ciologist (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All that does is explain what the organization is, without saying why it is notable as an organization. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The notability criteria are met because the institute has conducted research that has been cited by multiple, independent sources. See notability for organizations and companies Thes0ciologist (talk)
 * Any organization or individual can conduct research, but that doesn't tell us why this organization is an authority on this subject. Is their research independently peer-reviewed?  331dot (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a very different question, I think you are moving the goal post now. Do you agree that we have established that the organization is notable, per Wikipedia's standards? Thes0ciologist (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC) — Thes0ciologist (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * My position remains unchanged. I haven't said anything different than I told the other supporter above.  331dot (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete I have stated my case above. Your claim for deletion is that the references are "in passing." This is irrelevant because the Institution meets "Depth of Coverage" guidelines by being referenced by "multiple independent sources" that are referenced above. Finelinebilly (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are conflating two different things. What is needed are multiple independent sources that each discuss this in depth; multiple sources does not itself equal in depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, notability guidelines state as follows: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability."Finelinebilly (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC) — Finelinebilly (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Now you are cherry-picking. The rest of that paragraph is "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.".  The coverage cited here is all trivial; it provides no context as to why this organization's opinions or studies carry any weight. As ValarianB stated above, no sources have been offered that discuss this organization itself in depth.  I appreciate this discussion, but I think it unlikely either one of us will change the other's mind, so I will most likely have little to add after this. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment for admins. FYI 6 of "Thes0ciologist"s 7 edits are to either this deletion discussion or to the article, while "Finelinebilly" is the creator of the article in question. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete-Per nom. Winged Blades Godric 13:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm just coming to this discussion and need to take some time to look into the page, its history, and issues. A cursory glance suggests there are plenty of major news sources that have cited the organization, and that should probably be enough to establish notability. What I don't know is how much the wording of the page and its historical wording have been too self-promotional. If that were the case, it seems the best solution would be to edit, not delete. Make a better page of it, with edits from someone not directly associated with the organization, or allow some time and give suggestions for how the page could be made more appropriate for Wikipedia inclusion. zadignose (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Wait... Before posting the above comment, I probably should have looked a little more. Just a little more looking into the organization, and it seems its notability can not be doubted. Just a google search for "site:cnn.com Institute for Social Policy and Understanding" turns up an extraordinary number of articles that expressly source this organization's research, or that are penned for CNN by fellows of the organization. That alone probably makes it more notable than countless articles and stubs that remain in Wiki. A similar search for "site:nytimes.com Institute for Social Policy and Understanding" shows literally thousands of pages on the New York Times site that reference this organization in one way or another. Notable, for sure! Does not an article like this-->(https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/us/a-peaceful-muslim-majority-in-the-us-tarred-by-acts-of-a-few.html?_r=0), which sites the organization alongside Brookings Institution and Pew Research Center, strongly suggest notability? I haven't got the time to look through hundreds of such articles, but I think just a cursory search lays the debate on notability to rest.


 * The article's references section is actually too long to be reasonable for an article with little content, and that's almost certainly because someone is trying to establish notability. The overload of references are there to stop deletion. After we reach on consensus on this (Do Not Delete!), most of the references could go, or they could go to the talk page quite soon and take them out of the public eye if they aren't referenced in the body of the article.


 * Notable, for sure. If it was too promotional in some earlier version of the page, it doesn't seem so right now. It's just too stubby. It needs more content, with an objective, non-opinionated phrasing. Anyway, that's all about editing, not deletion. I can't see any strong reason to delete this. zadignose (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No one disputes that there are lots of name-drops of this organization, but there needs to be more in depth coverage, as I state in prior posts(and won't take up space repeating). 331dot (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I would add that sources written by "fellows of the organization" would not be an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The most notable thing for a research organization is to have its research routinely cited by major media outlets, and this organization has that in spades. It would be nice to find a more informative profile of the organization somewhere, from a third-party, but I don't think it's necessary. With sources such as Fox News repeatedly "noting" and citing the organization, with brief descriptions such as "a collaboration of scholars in the field of Islamic studies who served as advisors to the poll...", this is a notable organization. The quoted section of the guideline on notability, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability" is relevant. It's included for cases like this where we're not going with just one or two brief mentions. E.g., if the only thing notable about a guy named Karl Schmidt was that he was mentioned in one article about a tornado, and the only thing stated was "Farmer Karl Schmidt witnessed the incident from his back porch," then that wouldn't establish notability. Here, it seems to me, the dilemma isn't notability, but just the difficulty of building a more substantial article without fluff.zadignose (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This organization's research being cited doesn't mean much unless we know why it's being cited. What makes this organization an authority on the subjects that it researches? 331dot (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on a repeated tangential issue In re: "What makes this organization an authority on the subjects that it researches?" This is not relevant. We don't have to certify the organization. Even if the organization had no expertise or authority, even if everything they said was certifiable bunk, that would not impact on the question of notability, and it would not be grounds for article deletion. It's not for us to judge whether all major media outlets should rely on a particular organization's research. The fact that they do routinely credit the organization makes it notable.zadignose (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are certainly free to see it as unimportant; I disagree. It goes to notability.  Any group can publicize its research or get its name dropped in the media. That doesn't mean the group itself has in depth coverage or that it is notable. I realize we won't see eye to eye on this, and I appreciate the conversation.  331dot (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The "multiple independent sources...to establish notability" clause is to be read as "several independent sources are needed that on their own each may give just a small piece of unique information, but when combined can result in something more substantial than a permastub". That is not the case here though, seeing as the same short definition is repeated over and over again in the presented sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete, specifically fails the WP:SIGCOV criterion of WP:GNG. Some of the editors above have a fundamental lack of understanding "depth of coverage". Depth of coverage means that there is enough coverage, that is "enough information", about the subject in order to enable us to write more than a stubby one-liner. The presented sources, however, discuss this organisation in nothing more than one-liners, a so-called "passing mention". Being cited is not the same as being described and it is the description that is of most value to the creation of wiki-articles, because that is how we can reproduce substantial amounts of information. Unless independent sources are given that elaborate on for example the organisation's history, this page has got to go. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2017 (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.