Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mackenzie 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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Mackenzie Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Request by organization (OTRS 2016111110023449) S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, clearly notable per WP:ORG, with multiple secondary WP:RS. I can see much more online in Google News about the organisation that could be added, from more secondary RS. Its recent edit history shows that someone evidently connected with the group doesn't like what the article says about them, and tried repeatedly to overwrite it with glossy marketing closely paraphrased from (and only referenced by) their website, including via a sockpuppet account (now blocked). Wikishovel (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't find the organization's request for removal and I see there hasn't been any activity on the article talk page since 2008. I don't see any reason to delete, frankly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason you don't see the request for removal is that it was sent to Wikimedia by email. I provided the ticket number for OTRS but that will not help you unless you are an OTRS agent.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Well, as with Bearcat below, I'm not simply seeing a policy-based reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Organizations don't get to dictate that an article cannot exist at all if it's not their own massaged PR version — inclusion is governed by our notability standards, article content is governed by our content standards, and the organization themselves get no special right to override our rules in either area. If the organization has bias concerns about the content, they can raise their issues on the talk page for discussion — but they do not get veto rights over whether the article is allowed to exist at all, or what it is or isn't allowed to say. No prejudice against renomination in the future if a valid reason to delete can be found — but "the organization wants it deleted because their own PR whitewash of it has been reverted" is not a valid reason. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is quite common to receive requests for deletion at OTRS. On rare occasions, if the reason for the request is rooted in a reason such as a copyright violation, I will carry out the removal. My general response is that deletions are never simply done upon request; I usually try to explore why they think it should be deleted, counsel them on how to contribute to the improvement of the article if it is simply a poorly written article (i.e proposals on talk page, not direct editing). However, it is our standard practice to provide instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion and to offer to do so if they do not know how to follow them. On occasion, I get surprised and the discussion leads toward delete. I did not expect that in this case and I apologize for taking up your time but we do commit to nominate for deletion if they insist.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to poke you with my comment; I know that OTRS has to deal with the request in good faith according to its processes, and have no issue with that. What I was criticizing was the Mackenzie Institute's rationale for requesting deletion in the first place, not your response to that request. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Uncomplicated Keep Even a quick news google search indicates indisputable notability.  Article needs improvement, which is hardly an unusual situation - unfortunately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2016 (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.