Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for the Study of International Development


 * 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   redirect to McGill University.  MBisanz  talk 00:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of International Development

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article. Article fails WP:ORGDEPTH, not having in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. It's mostly self-published sources and trivial mentions, the kind of puffery you see in many articles by paid editors. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Possible merge to McGill University - Google News archives found brief mentions here, here and here. Former Prime Minister Joe Clark mentions here that he volunteers as a professor. This McGill University news article published last Thursday notes the university has partnered with a law firm for an education program set to occur the second week of November. Google Books, Google News France and Scholar provided nothing relevant. SwisterTwister   talk  04:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi SwisterTwister, thanks for your comments.  Of course, anyone can add a few lines to McGill University.  The issue here is whether the subject is notable according to WP:ORGDEPTH.  Your first four references are passing mentions only.  With regard to number four, note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.  Number five is a self-published source.  Bottom line is that these references barely address the notability issue.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google Books, Google News and Scholar provide nothing relevant.  It doesn't matter if Joe Clark taught a class there or availed himself of the toilet facilities, because of WP:NOTINHERITED.  All of the other mentions in sources are brief and passing.  The sources are not actually about the institute.  In fact, if you look at the sources, you'll see that they pretty much suck--just a hodgepodge of brief mentions, irrelevant name-dropping, bloggy onanism, and primary sludge.  It's really awful.  The paid editor who threw this dreck together in fifteen minutes and then charged $225 for it should give his client a refund.  You can always tell when you're reading an article by this guy, because the articles are similar in section-heading style, there are needless extra sections to make the subject look more important, the sections are brief and insubstantial, the articles deal in endless trivialities, and the sourcing either doesn't match the text at all or it's extremely, extremely tangential, as is the case with this article.  The Wikipedia community has roundly rejected this kind of "article manufacture," as though the articles were nothing more than cheap knock-offs produced in a factory, and the proof is in the rapid and thorough deletions of this editor's subpar work, of which I count at least nine deleted examples         .  (And guess who is often the solitary keep vote in the AfDs?  That's right, Mr. Paid Spam himself.)  This is the famous "sock'n'schlock" editing style, whereby multiple socks are used to mass produce similarly lousy articles in quick time, with false representations made to the "clients," and the Wikipedia community temporarily fooled into believing that the editor is a disinterested volunteer who wants to build an encyclopedia, rather than a person working secretly and under the table, who wants to cheat non-notable people and institutions as he lines his pockets with editing fees, "article assurance" fees, "article maintenance" fees, and monitoring fees.  According to the WP:NOPAY policy, it's legitimate to be a paid advocate if you do it in an upfront manner and follow all wiki policies in creating articles.  That is not what happened with this secretly produced article, nor with any of the other articles the guy has spammed us with. Qworty (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The "coverage" appears to be mainly reprints of what amount to press releases in low-quality industry magazines. Gigs (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2012 (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.