Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Organization for a Participatory Society (3rd nomination)

International Organization for a Participatory Society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly notable (though at present every reference is either from them or their allies) , and also a promotional article that I have not been able to get to a non-promotional state: note the reversal of my attempts to remove long quotes of praise from even the captions of the pictures. Better at this point to remove it altogether and let it be started with a proper NPOV. Promotionalism as well as notability is good grounds for deletion. The combination with borderline notability is very good grounds. The previous AfDs were both no consensus because of very limited participation.

As further evidence of promotionalism, the contributor has attempted to include for every member of the organization who has an article, a mentimn of the fact in the lede paragraph, and made a category out of them as well-- see CfD DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly notable based on the people involved alone. Not sure what you mean by references from them "or their allies" -- I assume it means you support a particular POV. Furthermore, you did not make several attempts of changing the article but only one, which was reversed for several good reasons, one of which included that you left out the organizations focus, which is important information and is all well documented in the articles history of course. Also the article includes no "praise from even the captions". In fact it includes no praise at all but mere statements. Some of those statements are from specific individuals so it makes perfect sense to attribute those statements to these individuals specifically rather than portraying them as facts which would be extremely misleading. Whether those statements are perceived as positive or negative only depends on the person reading them and what their own views are. Leaving out information concerning membership in the respective articles of members would make absolutely no sense in an encyclopedia and has nothing to do with promotionalism. Obviously, no grounds for deletion. --JohKar (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the statements in the captions are praise of the organizations can be seen by reading them: "IOPS strikes the right chords, and ... could carry us a long way " and " "The IOPS commitments ... We believe they correspond closely to the most prevalent, advanced, and widely accessible political beliefs on which to build an organization for winning a better world." (note the us and the we.

References: Refs 1, 6, 12 and 13 are from the organization. Ref 2 is an editorial, not a news account quoting from them extensively & amounts to PR; it's an editorial, not a news account--Al Jazeera is a reliable source--for news. Ref 4 is advocacy from a website;. Ref 5 & 10 are just an "interviews" where the founders say what they please to advocate the organization, Ref 11 is written by the founders, and is an appeal for members. Ref 3 & 9 I cannot find, but I think they'd be like the others. Ref 7 is a footnote giving the membership of the committee, not a ref. None of them are neutral news accounts from a reliable source.

I apologize for removing the paragraph on misaion; but looking at the article, there is more that I should have removed: the opinion by Schechter, the multiple focuses in the infobox, the duplication between "History"and "Structure", and the many spam insertions of the organization in every possible bio--along with listing them here.

Ambitious plans do not make an organization notable, only accomplishments. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irredeemably promotional: full of name-dropping (WP:NOTINHERITED), statements in the figure captions that read like ads (cf. blurbs of books that are not allowed into articles either), etc. In addition, notability is indeed weak at best. I agree that this may be notable, but to get to a neutral encyclopedic article, it's better to start from scratch. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above, full of name dropping and lacking third party coverage about the actual work of this organization. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As nominator seems to acknowledge, the organization is Wikipedia-notable (passive-aggressively(?) stating it is "possibly notable", in the nominator's words), with a complaining tone about not being successful in changing the article. Noam Chomsky's participation is important and so is the participation of other listed notables. These endorsements are relevant and important, much like the endorsements of other scientists along with Albert Einstein were important in establishing the importance of the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, for just one example. The Al-Jazeera reference alone is plenty to establish notability. Other complaints about "promotionalism" are for tagging or Talk page discussion, not reasons to delete. I dunno, maybe I want to join this worthy-sounding organization. It is clearly Wikipedia-notable. I don't dismiss DGG's concerns and I will watch the article and try to participate constructively, but the concerns seem not about notability. --do ncr am 20:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC) --do ncr am 21:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Al Jazeera alone establishing notability, WP:GNG requires multiple sources. Also note that it's an editorial, mostly written in the first person, with the publisher's disclaimer "The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy." Agyle (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have trouble understanding this nomination. According to nominator, the topic is notable, although only marginally so. I should think that one would only nominate an article for deletion based on lack of notability if there is a clear lack of such, and refrain from doing so when notability exists but is merely marginal.

A factor apparently deemed 'aggravating' is identified as 'promotionalism'. As far as I know, this alleged fault is not among the various policy-based reasons for deletion. It is, moreover, hard to mount a defence against this complaint lacking a definition or clear description of 'promotionalism'. There is an essay in the sandbox space of nominator, promisingly named 'What is promotionalism?', written for a non-existent WikiProject 'Promotionalism clearance campaign'. Instead of defining 'promotionalism', it presents a list of aspects (style, material included, article organization, article format, referencing) apparently deemed characteristic of articles inflicted by 'promotionalism'. But in fact, none of the thirteen points given appears to apply to the nominated article.

An important issue for any encyclopedia is to decide what material to include and what to exclude. Ultimately, I think, the basis for that should be what serves the readership best. The article we have here is not a very good one, but still serves to provide the reader who wants to know more about its subject matter, a revolutionary organization, with what I think is mainly relevant information. The reader needs to know something about the agenda of the organization, in particular what distinguishes it from many other revolutionary organizations. It is also highly relevant information that so many people who are already widely known for their political viewpoints have joined and have agreed to serve on its consultation committee. This is all factual information that helps the reader to understand and assess the topic; I don't see any of it as being unduly promotional.

Full disclosure. I believe I am the editor referred to above as 'the contributor'. I have not attempted to include a mention of their membership for every member of the organization who has an article, but only for those who are well known precisely because of their political views, such as Chomsky, who has said of himself he is not much of a 'joiner'. I have added this because, for these persons, it is relevant to know that they are a member of a revolutionary organization. In many cases the easiest or most obvious place for this information was in the lead paragraphs, but if I saw a better spot down in the body of these articles I put it there. There are many more members of IOPS who do have an article but who are not known for their political positions, and for them information on their membership, although not a secret, is not included here on Wikipedia. Lambert Meertens (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert you say article we have here is not a very good one, but still serves to provide the reader who wants to know more about its subject matter, a revolutionary organization, with what I think is mainly relevant information. The reader needs to know something about the agenda of the organization, in particular what distinguishes it from many other revolutionary organizations. It is also highly relevant information that so many people who are already widely known for their political viewpoints have joined and have agreed to serve on its consultation committee . that may all be true but how does this subject meet WP:ORG, not just being WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that specifically in response to nominator's claim that this is "a promotional article". My claim is that it is not particularly promotional: removal of the passages deemed promotional will result in an insufficiently informative article. The alleged "promotionalism" is presented as an important component of the argument for deletion. Lambert Meertens (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert, the nominator did not say that the topic was notable, but "possibly notable". Agyle (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator stated that the "combination [of promotionalism] with borderline notability is very good grounds [for deletion]". So he appears to be of the opinion that the article topic is marginally notable. But even if he thinks it is "possibly" notable, and thus definitely not undoubtedly non-notable, my bewilderment applies equally: why nominate an article for deletion if you have merely doubts about its notability? The answer appears to lie in the claim of "promotionalism", which I've tried to answer above. Lambert Meertens (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find significant coverage from what I'd consider independent reliable sources to establish notability. I disagree with arguments above that otherwise non-notable organizations inherit the notability of their members. Some references I considered:
- An Al Jazeera editorial is the only one I might consider a reliable source. It provides significant coverage, and while I wouldn't ordinarily count an opinion piece like this toward notability, its author, Danny Schechter, is notable and has an extensive journalism background. While I'm still on the fence about this, without other sources the question is moot.
- Syndikalismus blog entry provides detail, but the blog's About page indicates that it's run by people in an "anarcho-syndicalist movement", and "not an official website of an organization"; overall this does not seem like a reliable source.
- Colorado.indymedia.org has some good coverage, but the publication's motto is "become the media", and solicits articles from the public; again, this does not seem like a reliable source.
- Dailycensored.com provides a lot of detailed information, but is a word-for-word copy of the IOPS website About page and its subpages, so I wouldn't consider it independent.

And so on for all of the references cited. I found three independently-published books in books.google.com that mentioned IOPS; two were in single sentences, and one that provided about a paragraph of coverage was in an introduction, written by Chomsky, to a comic book, but I wouldn't consider the coverage significant. I found no academic articles in scholar.google.com that mentioned IOPS. Agyle (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]