Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illinois Policy Institute

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. I must reduce the weight given to views expressed in favour of the sources that, in my judgment, fundamentally misunderstand the tests that we apply to reliable sources and what they prove by way of subject notability. That said and done, the consensus in this discussion was plainly that this article – whilst containing a great number of sources (probably intentionally to excess) – nevertheless fails to establish notability of the IPI. (As always, this is without prejudice to any editor working up a compliant draft – that is substantively different to the form discussed here – and reintroducing to mainspace.) AGK ■ 21:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Policy Institute

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Illinois Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Utter corporate spam and entirely promotional, fails WP:SPIP. For the most part, any references I look at fail the criteria for establishing notability being a mishmash of quotations from connected sources or articles that comment on one of their announcements. The article is so bad that WP:TNT applies. There is also a strong smell that the article may have been created by an editor with an undisclosed COI. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. [Edit: Also, fails WP:NPOV] HighKing++ 14:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are news articles that are in-depth about the subject, are used in the article as citations, are intellectually independent of the subject, and therefore this helps meeting WP:GNG as well as WP:ORG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." - WP:GNG.
The user who has nominated this page for deletion is currently going around following me around and deleting about 5 of my last pages I created, all of which are about organizations. Fortunately, this page is more defendable because it has at least two in-depth sources that are intellectually independent of the subject. I don’t know why he’s picking me to follow around. Perhaps clarification?
- Illinois Times - https://illinoistimes.com/article-7520-conservative-think-tank-to-illinois:-turn-right.html
- State-Journal Register: http://www.sj-r.com/x450317297/Bernard-Schoenburg-Illinois-Policy-Institute-got-half-million-from-Rauner
- Chicago Tribune (this is somewhat in-depth): http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-perspec-zorn-cartoon-rauner-porter-0827-20170825-story.html
Plus, this article has been up for a decade; since 2008. Why now? Thanks, --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response I nominated it because I can't find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The article is also entirely promotional (and unbalanced) and fails WP:SPIP and WP:NPOV.
  • This article from the Illinois Times comes closest and starts well enough but on a closer reading it is clear it is not intellectually independent. For example, all of the photographs were provided by IPI and the article prints quotations verbatim without providing any intellectually independent analysis. This is probably the best source I could find but I having read it in detail, I was unconvinced and in any case, two sources are required to establish notability. As per WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGIND, If source's independence is of any doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude it from determining quality sources for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • This SJR reference is about a story where Bruce Rauner donated to the IPI. The IPI is not the primary subject of the article and the coverage is trivial and incidental and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the content about the IPI is directly sourced to the IPI and that fails WP:ORGIND.
  • The Chicago Tribune article is also a story mainly featuring Rauner. Like the previous article, the IPI is not the primary subject of the article and the coverage is trivial and incidental and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All of the content about the IPI is directly sourced to the IPI and fails WP:ORGIND.
In my opinion, it is very notable that the article has not been written with a Neutral Point of View. It is notable that in all three of the references you produced above, most are less-than-complimentary on some of IPI's activities, yet no "controversial" content is contained in the article. Contrast that with the John Simmons (attorney) article you created (which I've also nominated for deletion), most of which is taken up with a "Controversies" section. And seeing as how much you like to bold sentences, let me bold this: Wikipedia isn't here for you to grind personal axes or promote your political point of view. This article also contains over-the-top sourcing with 84 references, most of which are mentions-in-passing and do not support the text in the article. For example, the article states: The Institute has been described as an independent government watchdog, conservative, libertarian, free-market, and nonpartisan ... but fails to disclose that most of those descriptions originate from the IPI itself, yet the article attempts to hoodwink readers into thinking otherwise. HighKing++ 16:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back: In response to the gentleman, I don't have any "axe to grind". I'm conservative and that's not a crime on Wikipedia, so I like to work on articles that interest me, and those tend to be of conservative minded organizations, people, principles, etc. I don't "promote my political point of view." I take text from a published source, summarize it in my own words then post it to a Wikipedia article I like. The Simmons article has nothing to do with this article. The arguments here should be on the merit of Illinois Policy Institute, not the perception (of one of tens of thousands of active users) of misbehavior on another article of a person who happened to have edited both articles. As for your inkling that the person who created it has a COI, you'll have to scroll back to 2008 (a decade ago) when the article was created and then investigate from there. I wasn't even on Wikipedia that long ago. Best of luck! --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Do not be rude to me. I'm not being rude to you. Your comment about "How much you like to bold sentences" was uncalled for. I bolded it to draw eyes to it, not to yell. Yours was just yelling and mockery. Grow up. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are two more articles -- these two are directly focused on the IPI and make clear its significance in Illinois, and the first one explicitly says the organizations has become much more influential since 2007: 1,2 --1990'sguy (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nope. We are not debating whether the IPI exists - it obviously does - but whether it is notable enough, based on intellectually independent sources that have published in-depth information on the company. Most of those sources fail to meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Even assuming they are reliable sources (not even going to debate whether the "NPR Illinois" is a reliable source) - most of those articles simply mention the IPI in passing (failing WP:CORPDEPTH - for example, the US News reference, etc). The Chicago Sun Times reference is a piece on John Tillman. Contrary to 1990'sguy's assertion, that article does not explicitly say that the organization has become more influential since 2007 but rather that the "organization steadily expanded its work and influence" since 2007. Not the same thing at all. HighKing++ 17:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed my point, as I never sought to prove that the IPI exists. It meets GNG, as there are many sources that discuss the organization and its influence in Illinois politics. The Sun Times article is about the IPI -- it discusses Tillman's work as president of the IPI. Besides, you missed this in the IPI article: "Well before John Tillman began running the Illinois Policy Institute a decade ago, the nonprofit think tank was calling for major reforms to state government, especially its finances. But few in Springfield — or elsewhere in Illinois — paid attention. That changed when Tillman relaunched the institute in 2007. ......" The sources I have provided clearly show the organization is notable. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more time to discuss 1990'sguy's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The organization exists but that's not enough to prove notability. Lacks the significant coverage of the organization to meet WP:GNG. 1990sguy sources are about the governor appointing people connected to the IPI to positions on his staff. That seems like passing mentions and WP:NOTINHERITED to me.Sandals1 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources provided by 90sguy show the Illinois Policy Institute is notable (meets GNG), and is in the highest levels of government of the state it is located in.Sdmarathe (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdmarathe: Read WP:NORG about what "in depth coverage" is. For example, the article in the Chicago Sun-Times is not about the IPI, it is about John Tillman, the IPI has only four sentences. Also, the Illinois Policy Institute is not part of the government, it is an NGO, so it cannot be "in the highest levels of government". --Bejnar (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree with you on the Chicago Sun-Times article, and he is referring to all the people in the state government who were hired from IPI. For instance Chicago Business in 2017 said "These guys" are the newcomers in the governor's administration, almost all of them from the Illinois Policy Institute, a strongly opinionated libertarian think tank that has been given control of at least the public aspects of Rauner's administration in recent days and in some ways maybe the governor himself. -Obsidi (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. The article is referring to the people who were hired from the IPI and only has a one-line description of the IPI itself. That fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. This is why we say that notability isn't inherited. HighKing++ 18:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in my opinion, that article itself isn't enough evidence of WP:Notability (I have other reasons for my support). But I was just trying to explain the statement that they are "in the highest levels of government of the state it is located in." Is quite accurate, their people work there and they have substantial influence as just about all the RS agree (although I guess there has been a bit of a falling out earlier this year). -Obsidi (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are your other reasons for support? This is about whether the references meet the criteria for establishing notability - any other reasons should be disclosed. HighKing++ 12:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I think this article in the Illinois Times and this article in the Chicago Sun Times some of the coverage of the organization that meets WP:ORG. This is significant, independent, reliable, secondary coverage in which any similar org should easily qualify. To answer Michael Powerhouse's question of why now after this article has been up for a decade, I think that is fairly clear. They just won the Supreme Court case Janus v. AFSCME four months ago and while one would think that would make them even more notable, it also made a lot of people angry at them. -Obsidi (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Eh ... as the nom, I think if you take a look at my edit history, first I'm not from the US, second I've no particular interest in US politics, third I've never commented on anything related to the IPI previously, fourth and finally it's quite a scurrilous remark to make and very wide of the mark. On the other hand, when I look at your contributions.... HighKing++ 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine I'll strike the comment. -Obsidi (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I commented on your first source above - in my opinion at the time I said it was a weak source that probably failed WP:ORGIND but having read it a couple of times since, I agree with you that it meets the criteria in NCORP. The second reference though, from the Chicago Sun Times, is also a weak source but it has no in-depth coverage of the IPI. It talks about how the finances of "Project Six" is linked to the IPI but the mentions of the IPI do not meet the criteria for in-depth coverage. I would also ask you to comment on the lack of NPOV in the current article. It is noteworthy that some of the closest sources that meet the criteria for notability have less-than-complimentary things to say about the IPI and yet the article itself is promotional and glowing with praise. HighKing++ 12:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm convinced that this article meets WP:N based on the sources added here. They demonstrate that the subject is notable and influential enough to have it's own article. I have seen some other political articles kept with worse sourcing (this maybe deemed as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but still true). GenuineArt (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones in particular do you believe meet the criteria for demonstrating notability. Note that this isn't a !vote counting exercise. Post a link or two below. So far, we've yet to identify (the minimum of) two references that meet the criteria in WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 12:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is really badly source-bombed. It appears to fail WP:NCORP - I've only looked at sources which appear to include the organisation in the article title, so I may have missed a few, since a cursory glance of the other sources doesn't suggest anything approaching notability, they're all on other topics or in some cases WP:PRIMARY. I've also looked at the sources above and agree with HighKing. Also fails WP:PROMO, and even if we somehow were to keep this, it almost certainly needs WP:TNT. SportingFlyer talk 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Illinois_Policy_Institute&oldid=863295661"