Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internal Control 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 delete. The only person arguing to keep is the article's author, who fails to make a policy-based arguments why this should be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Internal Control Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Organization without coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, producer of a book and two certifications that also have meager online coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Given the lack of reliable sourcing (I find only the one currently in the article), an NPOV/NOR article about this subject would be very hard to write. Further, I see no good argument for inherent encyclopedic value in spite of weak sourcing. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails notability per WP:Corp and not having good WP:RS sourcing does not help. Reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm a finance professional in real life. This organization is no different than counterparts or similar parties: For independent audit side, there are articles of International Accounting Standards Board possesses 12 references (9 self references), IFRS Foundation possesses 13 references (11 self references). For internal audit side, there is Institute of Internal Auditors possesses ONLY 3 references (all self references). So what is supposed to be done? If this article will be deleted, all these I underlined shall be deleted? I kindly invite you to assess with sense and with no particular bias. Internal control is a significant and raising notion in financial industry and this body represents it. Again, I'd like to underline that if this article to be deleted, those other shall be at least nominated, as well. I'd do. Umi1903 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, it's entirely possible that other articles you might identify also qualify for deletion. If you have acquainted yourself with the notability guidelines, have performed due diligence as required under WP:BEFORE, and feel in good faith that they do qualify for deletion, then you can nominate them for deletion yourself.
 * The notability guidelines contain no exception of the form "If an article's topic is qualitatively in the same category as other topics that are notable, then the notability requirements are waived for that topic." For example, the fact that there are notable lawyers about whom Wikipedia has articles doesn't mean that all lawyers qualify for Wikipedia articles. Largoplazo (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which it theorical itself. You please answer my question: Will you vote "delete" when I nominate International Accounting Standards Board, IFRS Foundation and Institute of Internal Auditors which stand at same point with ICI? Umi1903 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea because I haven't looked into them and if I were to !vote on them, it would be based on my own assessment of them independent of the comparison you're making among these organizations, and independent of my assessment of this one. Largoplazo (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on my opinion stated above on 8 March 2019; I'd like to invite you to attend the deletion propositon from me for following articles relying your base concerns for this article. I don't compare articles, I just state that these articles fail in terms of criteria (WP:GNG or WP:CORP) constituted this thread. Articles proposed: Institute of Internal Auditors and IFRS Foundation. Please kindly attend. Umi1903 (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed both your PROD tags because you repeated verbatim the rationale I gave for this article with no regard for whether it was true for those organizations. For example, neither of them, as far as I can tell, issues two certifications. One appears to issue one, the other at least four. I'm not sure what you were up to, but see whether Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point applies. Largoplazo (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My concern is where exactly the other articles (IIA and IFRS Foundation) that I underline do make a difference compared to ICI? Is that because their Wikipedia creation date is earlier than this article? What is the rationale of this? My statement is perhaps verbatim for you, but it is solid and main reason. An answer is needed here and you cannot fill that answer yet, instead you tag the this discussion with hypothetical policies. On the other hand, cerifications are not the case here. An institution can issue professional certifications for qualifying professionals. Certifications may diversify up to specialisation, i.e. some of certifications that IIA issues are CIA for internal audit professionals, CPEA for environment audit professionals because the reqiurements are different. Back to basics, my standpoint is there is no difference in terms of deletion nomination of this article and others I underline. If this will be deleted, others shall be, as well. If not, this is hyprocacy. Again, if this will be deleted, I'll nominate them too. Why do you revert them? Just vote a "Keep" then. Please stop being bitter and tagging more policies. Other uses who voted a "delete", please answer my question and convince me so we will have a concensus. Umi1903 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's being bitter, making a scene about an issue that exists only in your own head. I said that, as far as I know, those articles qualify for deletion. The only thing I've disputed at this point was the specific PROD nomination that you submitted for each of them, where you indiscriminately and dishonestly copy-pasted my rationale from this discussion that doesn't accurately describe the situation in those articles. They were bad-faith nominations on your part. If you find those articles to qualify for deletion, then go ahead and nominate them following the process at WP:AFD with, for each of them, a good-faith, guidelines-based rationale justifying your nomination that applies to those articles.
 * There's nothing hypocritical about this. I saw an article that I felt qualified for deletion and I nominated it with a rationale giving my evaluation of that article's subject. You see articles that you feel qualify for deletion, you nominate them with a rationale giving your evaluation of those articles' respective subjects, not a copy-paste of the rationale I gave for this one. You're acting like this is some sort of a contest (which it isn't), as though I were spiting you somehow (which I'm not), or as though you think that by submitting those other articles for deletion, you're spiting me (which is ineffective because I don't care whether you submit those articles except to the extent that you're doing so out of spiteif that's your motivation, then that's disruptive editing). Largoplazo (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not try to deflect the root-cause and personalize this issue, please. My point is very clear. My question is still unanswered. You nominated this article whereas I defend it to be kept. Thus I have right to stand my statement if there is somewhat fair judgement happening here. If I haven't got any good-faith, what's my business to contribute Wikipedia? Why shall I edit here for over 10 years? Why did I create over 100 articles? To try to label me "bad-faith" is preposterous. Since the start, what I underline if the criteria is propsed by you to delete this article would cause a deletion, the counterpart articles that I list also shall be deleted. What can be possibly wrong about this? Why do you fancy deleting this article but opposing others to be deleted? You still don't answer this and yet you started to personalize the discussion. Underlining again that I'm finance professional in real life, I'd like to repeat: "Where exactly the other articles (IIA and IFRS Foundation) that I underline do make a difference compared to ICI? Is that because their Wikipedia creation date is earlier than this article?". I hereby back up my opinion that I'll nominate those articles, again. If this article fails, they also fail. That's it. Umi1903 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Me:
 * "Yes, it's entirely possible that other articles you might identify also qualify for deletion."
 * " I said that, as far as I know, those articles qualify for deletion."
 * "If you find those articles to qualify for deletion, then go ahead and nominate them following the process at WP:AFD with, for each of them, a good-faith, guidelines-based rationale justifying your nomination that applies to those articles."
 * "You see articles that you feel qualify for deletion, you nominate them with a rationale giving your evaluation of those articles' respective subjects, not a copy-paste of the rationale I gave for this one."
 * "... I don't care whether you submit those articles except to the extent that you're doing so out of spite ...."
 * You: "My question is still unanswered: Why do you fancy deleting this article but opposing others to be deleted?"
 * You've demonstrated your determination to continue fighting over a non-existent disagreement based on your bewilderingly counterfactual perception of my position on those other articles. Enjoy yourself. Largoplazo (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think that it's entirely possible that other articles "I" might identify also qualify for deletion, why did you revert the nominations done earlier by me? I'll do that again and please come along and "vote", instead of reverting. Umi1903 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Me:
 * [in one edit summary] "The reason given for the PROD is simply false ..."
 * [in the other edit summary] "... because the second half of the rationale is simply false. Take it to AFD."
 * "I removed both your PROD tags because you repeated verbatim the rationale I gave for this article with no regard for whether it was true for those organizations. For example, neither of them, as far as I can tell, issues two certifications. One appears to issue one, the other at least four."
 * "The only thing I've disputed at this point was the specific PROD nomination that you submitted for each of them, where you indiscriminately and dishonestly copy-pasted my rationale from this discussion that doesn't accurately describe the situation in those articles."
 * You: "... why did you revert the nominations done earlier by me?"
 * Please do not ask me any more questions without first reading what I've already written to see whether I've already answered them four or five times. Largoplazo (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I should add: There are reliable third party references in this article, whereas Institute of Internal Auditors possesses none. Umi1903 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is exactly one third-party reference in this article. The others are from ICI and its branches in Belgium, Turkey, and Zimbabwe. As for the Herald reference, it is a single mention in passing, identifying ICI as the host of a conference that was the venue where the source's topic said something. Largoplazo (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough in-depth sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel 5969  TT me 12:39, 11 March 2019 (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.