Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Show-Me 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Show-Me Institute

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

This article on a political organization does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability of organizations and companies. In particular, these guidelines state that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable." This article contains no links to non-incidental coverage of this organization, nor can I find such after an internet search. All references to the organization are incidental notes in the course of an article on something else entirely. As far as I can tell this organization is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia at this time, and the article should thus be deleted.


 * A quick Google search reveals the following articles:


 * [Show-Me Institute to release cable-TV study | http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2007/02/show-me-institute-to-release-cable-tv-study/] (Post-Dispatch, Feb 2007)


 * [Show-Me Institute not interested in seeing Bombardier tax credit fly | http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/11149] (KC Star, April 2008)


 * [St. Louis -based Show-Me Institute names Robert Heller to board | http://www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286-31774490.html] (Daily Record, June 2007)


 * [Show-Me Institute Study: State of Missouri's court plan as good as any | http://docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/SDRB/lib00528,120D3CFE25DCD348.html] (Daily Record, May 2008)


 * [Wage proposal seen as radical: A research group supported by business urges defeat during the November vote | http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20063485_ITM] (KC Star, October 2006)


 * And there are lots more in that vein. Binarybits (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, all of these look like incidental or trivial coverage to me. Out of these links, #'s 1 and 4 are reporting on a study and just mention the Show-Me institute as the source of that study.  #2 is just a link to an article put out by the Show-Me institute.  #5 appears to be an article on a wage increase proposal that just mentions the position of the Show-Me institute.  #3 does not actually allow viewing of anything but the title, so it is entirely possible that this is primarily an article on Robert Heller and not on the Show-Me institute.  Essentially, these are all incidental mentions of the Show-Me institute, not actual reports focused on the Show-Me institute.  Everything I was able to find was along these lines - incidental mention.  For notability as written above, there should be non-incidental coverage- essentially an article that actually focuses on this organization.  Locke9k (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is nonsensical. A think tank's primary activity is publishing studies, so it's not surprising that that's what most of the coverage focuses on. Similarly, most of the coverage of a movie star will be about the movies she's been in, and most of the coverage of an author will be about the books he's written. Binarybits (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As a counterexample, here, here, and here are articles explicitly about the Cato institute, not just about studies referencing the Cato Institute as their author, and there are many more along those lines. This is exactly the sort of thing that establishes notability, and there are none for the Show-Me Institute. Locke9k (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly Cato is more notable than Show-Me. I still don't think it makes sense to say a story that's entirely about a think tank's study is not coverage of that think tank. Binarybits (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, well its a reasonable disagreement. I think that these sorts of stories are exactly the 'incidental coverage' mentioned in the notability guideline above as being incidental, particularly since a google news search doesn't even turn up too many articles of that kind.  In any case, as I said, its a reasonable disagreement, so hopefully some community opinion in the AFD will help sort it out. Locke9k (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Google News's archive is showing me 171 items, with at least 20 being exclusively focused on Show-Me publications. Binarybits (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How do we feel about the not-unrelated article Rex Sinquefield? Could this redirect to his page, or vice versa?  Or should we expand this deletion discussion to include his resume article as well?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually with the edits I have recently made to Rex Sinquefield I think it can be made good. I deleted the copyright vios and tried to add some balance.  After doing a web search I am convinced that he meets the notability guidelines for individuals and that it is appropriate to have an article on him.  Hopefully it can be improved to be a little more comprehensive and balanced.  Nor do I think this should redirect to his page- just the fact the he is the president doesn't really justify a redirect to his page given that he seems to have been involved at a high level with many organizations other than this one.  Locke9k (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I am in agreement wwith Binarybits' comments above. I'm finding a large number of sources in a google news archive search.  Google scholar search gets some hits too: .  Some of the news articles are written primarily about the stances it takes and reports it issues: .  The reports issued by the institute are referenced a number of times in reliable sources (as the google scholar search shows), which also points to the institute being notable.  There's really no question about it for me.  Cazort (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles about the activities of an organisation are clearly adequate to show notability.  While articles that exist to describe it are clearly better sources, the former type are good enough. JulesH (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination: Several good point have been made above. While I still think this article may be borderline on notability, I'd prefer to err in the direction of keeping if there is any question. Thus for now, I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Lets just try to improve the article and add some balance to it if possible.Locke9k (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2009 (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.