Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank


 * 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   No consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Proposal by Barack Obama. Suggest we Delete/Merge with Political positions of Barack Obama, keeping with the current system of having proposals/platforms on the candidate's article. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I am not sure about that proposal. It would certainly make sense to add a section on the Bank to the article Political positions of Barack Obama and to link from there to the article on the National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank. But why go so far to delete it entirely? A Bank is not a political position as such, but it is an institution created to achieve certain goals. While related, the two topics are different in my view and there should thus be two different articles. Looking forward to see what others have to say.--Mschiffler (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is that the institution doesn't exist. (That it may exist is irrelevant, see WP:CRYSTAL.)  It's a proposal by a candidate, in an election season where there are many such proposals that never see fruition.  It hasn't garnered much independent, specific coverage - the only gnews hit (1) from a primary source mentions it as one of Obama's proposals.  If Obama was President and this bank existed, of course it would get an article.  As he is not, and this bank does not, it fails WP:ORG as an independent article.  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You make two arguments here, if I am not mistaken. Let me take them one by one. First, you say that because the Bank does not exist it fails WP:ORG. I did not see anything on WP:ORG that says that proposed institutions that are notable can't be the subject of an article. And there are precedents for proposed notable institutions covered by articles. For example, the article Union for the Mediterranean was created on April 16, 2007, although the institution itself was created only on July 13, 2008. Second, you say that the proposed Bank has not garnered much independent, specific coverage. It is true that there was not much coverage, but the point is that there was independent coverage that was as specific as it is possible at this stage. Given the proposed size and functions of the Bank and the coverage in various reliable media - including secondary, independent sources - it seems to fulfill the criteria for WP:Notability.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I said it fails WP:ORG because of both points. I may not have been as clear as I should have been, so let me restate my case.  Currently, the bank as outlined in the article does not exist.  That it has been proposed by a prominent political candidate does not overcome WP:CRYSTAL; he hasn't been elected.  So far, the bank has received, from secondary sources, a one-line mention in the San Diego Union Tribune - in early August.  WP:ORG specifically says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."  I haven't found anything else in the press.  If you can provide cites to these secondary sources, please do so and I will be more than glad to reconsider my position.  Otherwise, I fail to see how this is, in any way, notable enough for its own article.  In reference to the Union for the Mediterranean, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies.  If the proposal gains steam and thus crosses the notability threshold outlined in WP:ORG, we can easily re-create the article.  Otherwise, we'll just end up with WP:SEWAGE. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly know the Wikipedia rules very well. Still, I am not convinced, since you interpret them in a way that seems a bit biased to me. There has been more media coverage from secondary sources than just one article. A Google search today got 865 hits. True, many are from blogs or are double hits from the same source. But I saw at least one more article from a newspaper, albeit not a well known one (it is called Logisticics Management ). I don't say it's a well-known issue that everyone talks about. But it is notable. And it is not speculative in the sense of the examples given in WP:CRYSTAL, since there is no speculation on my side about what the Bank could look like as in the examples given there. It seems clear to me that the coverage is not trivial, as you write. How about if we wait and see if others want to weigh in on this?--Mschiffler (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As crystal balling. Political promises, even those that come with position papers, are a dime a dozen.  Very few of the promise makers get elected and even when elected, few promises get enacted into law.  Further, those which do make it to the house may die stillborn (see 1993 Clinton health care plan).  However, I don't think that the application of the ORG guideline works here.  If Obama pushes this harder in the election and we see some significant coverage on the subject, we should be able to remake this article and judge its merits based on the general notability guideline.  Right now independent, reliable coverage is too little for a future event.  Also, as an editorial manner, the article should be written describing the proposal, not the bank as envisioned by the proposal. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you're hung up on "crystal balling", then change the title to National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank proposal.  The proposal currently exists, and this article gives full detail about it, so that the Political positions of Barack Obama need have only a summary.  A daughter article like this is a good way to enable us to present fuller information about a candidate's proposals, while keeping the "political positions" article to manageable length. JamesMLane t c 03:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me to change the title and to rewrite the article to emphasize that this is only a proposal.--Mschiffler (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, since this AfD nomination was made it has been described in the International Herald Tribun, and was mentioned in USA Today back in Feb. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2008 (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.