Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformative Studies 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. Following references being added, the consensus is to keep --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Transformative Studies Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article does little but promote a non-notable organization. Almost all references given are from the organization's own website. No independent coverage found. Speedy delete tag removed by an editor whose user name closely matches that of the organization's founder, which makes me strongly suspect this article was posted by the organization itself as self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to all: Please follow proper procedures for AfDs by prefacing your comment with a vote in boldface: "Keep," "Delete," and so on. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

— Robdirect75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is a legitimate organization with actual academic impact. For example, I know a few colleagues across America who have published with their peer review journal.  The organization is clearly Left in its ideology and should not be attacked directly or indirectly.  A short scan of the related authors listed on the page and involved with the organization shows a who’s who of Left academia.  I think this page is no different than many other similar pages for such organizations found on Wikipedia.  It deserves to be included.   Robdirect75 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "The organization is clearly Left in its ideology and should not be attacked directly or indirectly" - is that a new law or a threat? Who is attacking the organisation? An article on Wikipedia about the organisation is being discussed. Is this an attack on the organisation? Whether or not the article is the same as other articles is irrelevant. It's this one under discussion. Peridon (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Peridon, I was expressing my opinion as you are too. No there is no law or threat here.  As an academic I feel there should be some uniformity and fairness as to how we treat what are by definition ideological organizations.  That is why I stated there are similar conservative articles in the context of discussing this one in particular.  I said my peace on this one, be well. Robdirect75 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the organization is notable, but i need more verifed external sources. I think Robert above may have a point in regard to inclusion, but more on the point of bias, wikipedia tends to delete things with this sort of bias and ignores other things, it is a systematic bias that comes out in some of the research. We should avoid systematic bias, but verified sources are required. --Buridan (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why Wikipedia would think it is fine to have articles on orgs like the Intercollegiate Studies Institute or the Show-Me Institute and not the Transformative Studies Institute. TSI is a real organization with a real peer-reviewed journal that is doing interesting and exciting work. Wikipedia should be at the cutting edge of what is new out there--you shouldn't have to be making the front page of the paper in order to be included. I'm not sure what Buridan means by saying he wants more verified sources, but articles from TSI's journal are available in Google Scholar, and proof that it is a Nonprofit Organization can be found in Guidestar. Mlarthur (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Mere existence and non-profit status does not make an organization notable enough for exclusion. Having said that, I'm considering nominating one or both of the articles mention for deletion as well; thanks for bringing them up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I have just nominated the Show-Me Institute article for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC ) Never mind. It was already put through an AfD and the nomination was withdrawn. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Keep" I think the article has merit and does what it is supposed to, it explains the founding of the organization, what it does, and its principles. In terms of references, a Google search will give multiple results beyond the organization’s websites that will support what is written in the entry. I also agree with Robdirect75. Taking an example from the left, look at the entry for the [Institute for Social Ecology]. It is similar to this one. I say if there is a problem with the tone then simply say so as with the Institute for Social Ecology and let this entry be edited and improved over time. Unless, you want to delete this page too Realkyhick.Lisaflower252 (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC) — Lisaflower252 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. I don't see anything anywhere that indicates this is anything more than a guy who was pissed off because he got fired from his university job. It looks impressive but it's not; there is nothing there. He'd also have a little more credibility if he spelled "scholar" correctly on their official website. --Crunch (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep TSI is a legitimate organization that involves some of the most notable social science academics in North America and beyond (e.g., Peter McLaren, Henry A. Giroux, Stanley Aronowitz, Richard Kahn, Michael Parenti, etc); publishes its own print journal; and is affiliated with several other established scholarly organizations. The article does exactly what you expect of a Wikipedia entry. I see no reason to delete the article, which is well written and includes external references and related literature. TSI is not "a guy who is pissed off because he got fired from his university job" nor is it a non-notable organization. The arguments above in favor of deletion must be considered ideological attacks since they have no basis in fact nor present coherent arguments in relation in to the deletion policy.Eastvanman1 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastvanman1 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from attacking other editors, either specifically or with sweeping charges. As for me, I frankly didn't even pay attention to the political leanings of this group when I nominated this for deletion, and I could still care less. Non-notable is non-notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

keep TSI is a real, legitimate organisation. The article does not breach Wikipedia rules, nor meet deletion criteria. Enough said. The organisation is coming under attack due to its politics. It is worth Wikipedia administrators considering this. Noam bergman (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC) — Noam bergman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Do I start to smell the sock drawer again..... Being a real, legitimate organisation is irrelevant. And no-one has said that it isn't, anyway. I belong to, and have belonged to and sometimes chaired, various real, legitimate organisations that don't merit a place on Wikipedia. Personally, I couldn't give a **** about your politics, and you have no knowledge of mine - or of that of most of the other regular editors here. The political bent of the subject wasn't even referred to in the article as I read it. There was a mention of someone being dismissed on political grounds - but that could mean far right, far left, or just an excuse (by either side). I was inclined to say keep - but the appearance of SPAs parroting inclines me to think there is little legitimate (by Wikipedia's standards) reason to keep. I have taken part in more of these discussions than I care to count, and almost invariably the louder the squarking the less there is to be said.  spelling intentional  If you want to save the article, look at the policies, ignore other articles (they have absolutely no bearing on this issue) and do not accuse us of political bias when you have no knowledge of who we are. Please note: I am saying this to try to help you. Get better references You only have one that might be considered sound. All the TSI ones are good for further reading only - not for establishing notability. The Steven Best and others one might be good, but I can't access it over here. Don't just claim notability here - prove it. Get outside, reliable references that show the TSI is what you say - or at least that it has been the subject of sound coverage. Peridon (talk) 10:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep those in favor DO make logical arguments BEYOND the political question. The entry is fine. The people are real and noteworthy, the activities verifiable, and the statements factual. I am counting 3 delete votes: Peridon, Crunch, and Realkyhick; 6 keep votes Robdirect75, Mlarthur, Lisaflower252, Eastvanman1,  Noam bergman, me; and one on the fence BuridanLovespreserves (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC) — Lovespreserves (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Peridon has not !voted yet. Besides which, this is not a head count. The !votes are merely an indicator. It's the arguments that are taken into account. Read what I've said. Just saying keep is no good and it will be disregarded. I am telling you how to get your article saved - and believe me, I've seen a lot of people do what you're doing and lose out by disregarding good advice. "The people are real and noteworthy, the activities verifiable, and the statements factual." OK. Verify. Give us the proof. That's what we are asking. We won't just accept you saying it here. Your current list of references is about as much good as a chocolate fireguard - get better ones from outside the TSI. Sorry to seem rude - it often is the only way to get someone to listen. If you don't produce the references, I'll have to assume that there aren't any to produce. I agree with Buridan that this organisation could be notable. But you have to show us, and you aren't. Peridon (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

People, I did a quick cleanup of the references hopefully with more to come according to the recommendations so we can keep the article and continue cleaning it up. Old references 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 7, are external and independent of the organization numbers 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23 have been removed with 19 being replaced by three new external references. Removed one External Link to YouTube at the bottom, added a new external ref number 9 that is critical of the organization. Hope this helps. Sociologist2000 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * — Sociologist2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yes, this was my first try at a Wikipedia entry and I hope no one holds this against me.  I am doing my best here and welcome advice and support.Sociologist2000 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that. The issue here is not the quality of your writing or anything like that. It is simply whether this organization meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Many editors here went through similar experiences when we first began, myself included. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we're on the right track. Thanks for listening. But... those refs are independent of TSI, but they don't really show notability. GuideStar tells us TSI is non-profit. That's showing existence, not notability. The Chief backs up the re-instatement order. Good. What's needed is coverage in the press, which can be academic publications or similar but not blogs/forums - see WP:RS for more details. You don't need too many - just enough to show it's not a group meeting in the pub every second Thursday unless there's a match on. Keep going - these things usually last for a week. And organisations like this usually get a bit of leeway in the notability proof as they don't exactly hit the headlines of the NYT (or the Enquirer...) very often. Show you are known about to more than the cleaner who locks up after you. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I say Keep The article looks fine (is this an updated version?) and the organization is legitimate. I’m helping by adding another independent reference to their journal –follow it to see it is available in 196 libraries worldwide.  This is plenty of impact for an academic publication if you ask me. Thanks for being constructive Peridon.  BRodriguez222 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC).
 * — BRodriguez222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note The clear majority of the arguments for "keep" come from editors who have made no edits at all away from this topic (BRodriguez222, Lovespreserves, Lisaflower252, Robdirect75, Sociologist2000), and others are from editors with very few edits elsewhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of the "keep" arguments relate neither to the reasons given for deleting, nor to Wikipedia criteria. Thus we repeatedly have "TSI is a real, legitimate organisation", "TSI is a legitimate organization", "the people are real". In fact the argument "we should keep this because the institute really exist" appears in various forms of words but the same in substance from most of the accounts that have argued for "keep". We also have the [{WP:OTHERSTUFF]] argument. We have "Wikipedia should be at the cutting edge of what is new out there", which is actually the opposite of Wikipedia policy, as we do not accept original research, and accept only articles on subjects which have already received substantial coverage. We have "The arguments above in favor of deletion must be considered ideological attacks since they have no basis in fact nor present coherent arguments in relation in to the deletion policy", which is complete nonsense. Most bizarrely of all we are told that "The organization is clearly Left in its ideology and should not be attacked". How that is supposed to relate either to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or to the reasons for deletion given in the nomination is beyond me.
 * Turning away from the reasons given for keep, and on to reasons for deletion, I see no evidence of notability. Checking the references given in the article, I see a large number of them are to the institute's own site. Others are to other affiliated organisations (e.g. the site of Project Censored, which includes Transformative Studies Institute in "a growing list of organizations that Project Censored has partnered with"). Then we have a couple of facebook pages, and a blog post, and a couple of web pages that, as far as I can see, do not mention the Transformative Studies Institute. Then a mere entry on a listing. Nowhere do I see any coverage by any independent reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Added references 20-24 under Current Activities demonstrating activity / notability. Please note, organizations like the Eastern Sociological Society and universities such as the State University of New York (SUNY) are major for the social science academic community.  To participate and engage in collaborative programs is notable, at least within our educational communitySociologist2000 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, notability within a certain community and notability by Wikipedia standards are two entirely different things, and here we consider solely the latter. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to you as well, educational institutions are a significant part of any society impacting other important institutions ranging from political to economic and cultural in ways that may not be seen directly. Therefore, it does not matter if the actual numbers within this group ‘education’ are smaller than say Fox 5 viewers regarding the comment that ‘notability within a certain community and notability by Wikipedia standards’.  A better example, using a far better known academic: take Noam Chomsky, he is an intellectual super star in academia yet the general public probably never heard of him.  Does this mean he does not deserve a Wikipedia entry?  Although TSI and Chomsky are not the same I think this is a comparable situation.  What is wrong with letting this entry ‘live’ as long as it is monitored for possible concerns?  I do not know if any of those opposed to the entry come from the academic world but for those of us who do this is an important case.  The institute has been around since 2007 so it’s not a bunch of guys meeting ‘at a pub’ only to be disbanded a month later.  The institute has been seen and noticed within academia and yes this is not the same as notability of an actor who may have a publicist and so on. Sociologist2000 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that educational institutions are important, and many, many of them are given articles here. The question is simply whether or not this particular one measures up to the long-established standards for notability at Wikipedia. I contend that it does not for the reasons I've set forth. "Letting an article 'live'" is a variation of an argument used here often that amounts to, "Let's leave this alone for a while, and maybe everyone will forget it exists and it will slip in between the cracks." That won't fly. (By the way, I think Noam Chomsky may be better known by the non-academic public than you give him credit for.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chomsky's article has 117 references.... (And for some odd reason gets vandalised quite often.) Mind you, he's been around a bit longer than you have. We are waiting for the evidence for this academic notability. There are different applications of notability for academia - but we need more to go on than we've got. We won't and can't merely accept the say-so of a load of new accounts - who might be all the same person, for all we know (it has happened and will happen again - and still won't work). It would reduce us to the level of Yahoo! Answers if we did. Show us that the academic community talks about you, writes about you, and has even heard of you. We aren't asking for top 10 best selling publications (or hit records), just references from reliable sources. (One ingenious chap actually created two 'newspapers' to back up a rather good hoax, not long ago. Didn't work.) If you can't find the evidence we seek - come back when you can. Peridon (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha, all you admins are saints and experts. Since you like talking about frauds how about this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy ‘Following the media coverage of the Essjay controversy, a number of academics noted the damage to the credibility of Wikipedia. On March 2, 2007, a report in The Chronicle of Higher Education commented "the incident is clearly damaging to Wikipedia's credibility—especially with professors who will now note that one of the site's most visible academics has turned out to be a fraud."[55] Ross Brann, a professor of Judeo-Islamic studies at Cornell University in Ithaca, stated that Wikipedia lacks a process of scholarly review, saying, "They could make up your life if they wanted to." Brann also said that Wikipedia "has no place in the University," and he believed the Essjay incident would do nothing to change the unfavorable opinion that academics generally hold about the online encyclopedia. Students at Cornell indicated that they may continue to use Wikipedia as a quick source of information, though they would not cite it in scholarly work.[56]’Anticapitalistpower (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC).


 * And your point is...what, in relation to this article? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not an admin.... We who are regular editors fall into two main categories. Those who have very specialist knowledge, who monitor articles within their field - a very valuable contribution. And then there are those with a very wide knowledge that isn't specialised and deep in any particular area - but which is deep enough to enable further research when needed. I've lost count of the hoax articles I've tagged - some apparently quite genuine on the surface and very scientific. (Others simply pure crap....) I couldn't care a tuppeny damn what 'academics' think of Wikipedia. It's not here especially for them. No professor should need to look up something in his field here. But he might want to know about something outside his field when word of it floats up to his ivory - no, can't have ivory now - tower made of something looking a bit like ivory but not close enough to upset the Greens. "They could make up your life if they wanted to.". Been done - been found out - been deleted. That's why we want evidence here. Give us the evidence - our standard of evidence as it's our ball and our field - and we'll shut up and go away. Stick to your standards, and start your own Academipedia. Wikimedia will probably host it for you. And then you find the hoaxes and vandals and people who don't want to follow the rules.... Peridon (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Three additional external sources have been added #16, 26, 27 further indicating notability by major publishing houses. BRodriguez222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Updated intro with notability reference by Pine Forge Press book publicationSociologist2000 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there's just about enough now (not that that means 'don't add any more refs' - the more the better if they're reliable). Peridon (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability established and verified. --Buridan (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2010 (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.