Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty
See this week's Economist and the discussion on the talk page, including the writer of the Economist piece himself discussing his efforts to verify the organization's claims. Wikipedia must not allow itself to be a vehicle for any intelligence service's disinformation schemes. And even if it had been verified, I do not believe the organization itself is notable. Daniel Case 02:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg|20px]] Keep. (Tentative.) Ah, but the very existence of the Economist article may make it notable. This page could serve as an article about its claims and the coverage in the Economist. Morgan Wick 04:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Even as a hoax organization/instrument of propaganda, this is encyclopedically notable, especially with the exposé Bwithh 04:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then rename the article into something like International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty controversy. As it is, a hoax organization has no place having an article, even if its status as a hoax is duly noted within the article. Would you vote to keep this if the exposé were just on the talk page? Daniel Case 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's not just on the talk page. The exposé (which is not totally confirmed) is in the article too. It is strongly suspected that this is a hoax organization used for disinformation, but it is not absolutely confirmed. Bwithh 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So it isn't verifiable, then. Without the Economist writing about it, it wouldn't just be deleted, it would be speedied. Daniel Case 06:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Morgan Wick & Bwithh. Do not rename, just explain why the organization's bona fides are in question starting in the first paragraph. --Metropolitan90 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I would presume, then, that if and when ICDISS is found to be neither bona nor fide there will be no argument that this article has no place on Wikipedia? We have enough trouble filtering out real NN orgs as is; is a phony organization notable just because the work of verifying the article was done in an internationally circulated magazine? Daniel Case 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, and slap a disputed tag on it. ONUnicorn 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename, per Daniel Case. The controversy is undoubtedly real and notable, the organisation may or may not be. JQ 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep And preserve a record of this act of gross propaganda. Sonicdeathmonkey 16:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename and try to find as much dirt on their propagandistic activities as possibly. *evilgrin* &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep articles about hoaxes that are cited in reputable news sources such as the Economist are certainly worth keeping. A renaming and partial rewrite might be useful, though. - Bootstoots 16:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would editors who supported Keep early on like to express their views on the alternative of Keep and rename?
 * Keep (and most probably rename) per Morgan, Bwithh, and Nightstallion. Joe 19:17, 10 August 2006 (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.