Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roosevelt Institution


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus when discounting IP votes. Ral315 (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Roosevelt Institution
This is a non-notable student organization. All the links from other articles to it were added by User:Kstinch in an apparent attempt to make this seem more important and notable than it actually is. Roosevelt Institution was also previously deleted on September 13, 2005. The Terminator 07:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. &mdash;Crypticbot (operator) 16:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I mean, I'm not sure how you would define notable. Since March of last year, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Times, the Nation Magazine, Mother Jones, Current Magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle, and many other press outlets have found it worth enough to note. The Roosevelt Review is the country's only student-published public policy journal of a national scope, and the organization is active at over 120 college campuses in the United States, and a handful in Europe. Can you elaborate on your reasons, beyond Kstinch's links, for declaring the organization non-notable? Andrew 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable vanity ad for a student organization. Google hits are only their official web sites, student newspapers, and wikiforks.  Google News only shows student newspapers. OCNative 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment by 68.252.195.60:


 * Kstinch here -- the reason I'm the main person listed in the history is because there were two articles, "Roosevelt Institution" and "Roosevelt institution" -- different capitalization. The one with incorrect capitalization had most of the editing history. If someone objects to the links, I don't mind people taking them down, my understanding of how this works is that a newbie does something they think will be useful with the understanding that someone else might decide it's not useful -- but I don't see the links as a basis for deleting the article...


 * Google says 43,000 pages refer to the Roosevelt Institution (though I think this is an overestimate). Alexa  says Roosevelt is (barely) among the top million most visited sites on the net, while others listed in the List of economics consultancies and think tanks (which represent a decent consensus about what is well-known) are similar or worse (for example Timbro and the New Politics Network rank something past four million, Business_Round_Table is at 1.7 million, Fabian Society, Reform (think tank) and Foreign Policy Centre are at just over a million. I wouldn't describe the Roosevelt Institution as one of the most prominent American think tanks but it does seem to get media attention (as Andrew argued) and seems to be something people on the net look for and find useful.


 * Another comment -- the fact that four different users at different times have created the article suggests that there's a need for it. If someone wants to edit the article, sure...


 * Disclaimer: I do play a major role in the organization. I thought it was useful for me to correct some inaccuracies in the previously-existing article (among which, I was listed as the founder), to improve Wikipedia. And then while I was at it I listed it on the Think Tanks page, etc. Once it was listed for deletion I read over the policies and I it seems like there's a lot of debate about an organization's members to edit the page -- the consensus seemed to be that if it's an encyclopedic subject and written fairly it's OK, but if you're writing about yourself it does cast suspicion that it's a vanity article. Anyhow, if it's the consensus policy that I shouldn't have improved the original article because of a conflict of interest or something I'd be glad for someone to let me know and I'll refrain from editing the page in the future.

End of comment by 68.252.195.60


 * The history of Roosevelt Institution and history of Roosevelt institution both show they were created by anons. All major edits were by anons or Kstinch.  The Roosevelt Institution's official contact page shows Kai Stinchcombe (email is    ) is the webmaster.  The Terminator 10:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The organization has been prominent enough to receive stories in the New York Times and other papers, hold meetings on capitol hill, put out a journal of policy, and so on. I think it's notable enough for an article. (Disclosure: I helped out with the institution's launch a little bit when I was at Stanford.) AaronSw 15:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep they've gotten press covereage in reputable publications and many student newspapers across the country. TMS63112 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a vanity article.  TMS63112 is the only keep vote that appears to have not been involved in this organization. Senatedems 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if verifiable sources can be provided. AaronSw has claimed the group has received press coverage in notable newspapers, which would qualify the article's inclusion, but without links or citations, we can't verify. If none can be provided, then delete.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Going to their website, I found press links to the outlets they claimed. Those links are now part of the wiki entry under the official website section.


 * Keep This is not mentioned in the article, but according to the organization's website they appear to have the backing of several heavyweights who are not known for throwing around their endorsements lightly. Their Board of Advisors includes President Clinton's former Secretaries of Defense and Labor (Bill Perry and Robert Reich, respectively), Clinton's former Press Secretary Dee Dee Meyers, Clinton's former Chief of Staff John Podesta, Jim Dean, Hoover Senior Fellow Larry Diamond, and Katrina vanden Heuvel, the long time Editor in Chief of The Nation.


 * Keep The Roosevelt Institution has also been accepted within the think tank community; following a link form their website, it appears that the Center for American Progress, one of the major liberal think tanks in the country, has co-published at least one report with the organization:


 * 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.