Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intercollegiate Studies 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 02:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Intercollegiate Studies Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was speedy deleted as blatant promotion. Consensus at DRV was that a good article could potentially be written from the available sources, but I am unable to find a demonstrably NPOV version in the history which relies more on reliable independent sources than on the organisation itself and closely-allied sources (i.e. we only have a least-worst version available). Given the fact that it was deleted, I think it is fair to ask that if it is not substantially improved with reliable independent sources giving a properly balanced view of the organisation within the AfD timeframe, it needs to be deleted until such time as a Wikipedia-compliant article is offered. We can't keep it as-is, due to canonical policy, so I invite people to improve it significantly, or else delete it. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is kind of confusing. In the DRV close, you wrote, restore the article and revert to a neutral version, but you also nominated this for deletion.  These seem at odds with each other.  Could you explain your intentions here, and/or update the DRV closing statement to make this more clear?  Thanks.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is the least non-neutral I could find in the history, but still lacks any independent analysis or reliable independent sources. As a courtesy, and based on the good faith view that there should be potential for an article, I have restored it, to a least-worst version based on my own flip through the history, but the article we have now fails badly and in the end the concern of promotion and bias is valid, so if we don't fix that then we should remove it and wait until someone comes along to write a good article in its place, because leaving a bad article up doesn't really serve the project well. That's my view, anyway. I amended the rationale slightly. Is that clear now? Maybe not. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with you deciding to bring this to AfD, but could you please update your DRV close to explain this? I also see that  edited your DRV closing statement in a way which makes it look like you wrote it!  That seems like excedingly bad form, and just makes this whole thing even more difficult to follow.  That should be reverted.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see this. No reason to revert, it was a helpful edit and Guy didn't mind. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - nothing remotely close to the level of promotion necessary to demand deletion and the organization is clearly notable. --B (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ...a claim which you will no doubt promptly substantiate by adding the requisite reliable independent sources to the article. Thanks in advance. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Come now. It's no flipping tougher than clicking on the "news", "newspapers"  and "books"  links above to find dozens of good sources.  What the heck?  That this seems to be a polarizing outfit with some strong political views is true, but getting upset that the article isn't Fair-And-Balanced is a content issue, not one appropriate for AfD.  Nha Trang  Allons! 20:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And no doubt as one who wishes to keep the article, you've added those sources. Haven't you? Because I nominated it as being unsourced and therefore not provably WP:NPOV, and NPOV is not optional ever. Guy (Help!) 00:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And no doubt as someone who's read the relevant guidelines, you're aware of the GNG ("Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet ... If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.") and WP:Deletion policy ("Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."). And y'know?  If your problem is that the article violates NPOV, what in the merry hell prevents you from changing it yourself?  Deleting an article because of a content dispute not only violates policy, it's the lazy man's out.  Nha Trang  Allons! 20:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly passes WP:GNG & WP:ORG, as the subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources. Please see WP:NOTCLEANUP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, having read my deletion rationale (that we cannot establish NPOV because the article cites no reliable independent sources and never has, and for most of its life has been pure vanispamcruftisement), when will you be adding these reliable independent sources establishing notability and allowing an assessment of the neutrality of the article? I do encourage you to re-read the deletion rationale. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was the original CSD nominator. I nominated for blatant promotion (G11). It's certainly not neutral, so the POV tag is warranted, but now that Roy has reverted, the pervasive promotion is no longer there. No question that the subject is notable. Barely scrapes by the notability threshold from the sources I have found. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, having read my deletion rationale (that we cannot establish NPOV because the article cites no reliable independent sources and never has, and for most of its life has been pure vanispamcruftisement), when will you be adding these reliable independent sources establishing notability and allowing an assessment of the neutrality of the article? I do encourage you to re-read the deletion rationale. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning on it, and it shouldn't make any difference for this discussion. I understand the deletion rationale. Generally bias isn't considered a valid basis for deletion. There is a world of difference in this regard between bias and promotion, despite the fact that the two can sometimes be difficult to differentiate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added some of the sources I brought up in the DRV. Thank you  for taking me to task on this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And thank you for assuming good faith and doing what needs to be done. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with the above. It seems to be notable and improving. Still puffery to remove and cleanup. I will do some now. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - bias and un-sourced are not reasons to delete an article if those problems can be solved. I believe they can be in this case. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:05, 24 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.